🟢 Try Speakly with first 7 days for free and get 60% discount on an annual subscription: speakly.app.link/goodtimesbadtimes 📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT ➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
SSK are harder to detect than SSN... SSK can turn off their engine, SSN cannot just turn off their reactor. so you are wrong in detection. SSK are proven to be harder to detect in US wargame against other european states that operate SSK... to the degree that SSK manage to sink the US carrier undetected in those exercises... the issue with SSK is their defensive in nature lacking the range of SSN. however they are actually superior when near their home waters...
furthermore the claim that SSN can be a threat to China in a Taiwan scenario can only be spoken by armchair admiral that does not understand what the island chain problem actually is. the island chain create limited opening to which can be ambush, the Chinese just need to drop sonar between the island and they can find the sub, while within the china seas, the water isn't deep enough for submarine to hide against patroling anti sub aircraft... in fact the only reason why US wargame priortise the sub isn't because the sub are effective, but because the rest of the fleet is ineffective against chinese forces due to the overwhelming superiority of chinese missiles. thus the subs are the best thing USN has, however that doesn't mean they are great in a confined seas that limit where they can hide and move. this idea that US can win in Taiwan is a mirage. the reason why westpac is reorganised to indopac was so the westpac fleet can flee to the indian ocean and threaten chinese shipping there well away from the china seas. US strategic plans against China in a Taiwan scenario is not to intervene directly but a blockade far from China, to be an itch that China cannot scratch. just like how US does not intervene directly in the Ukraine war but freeze Russia trade overseas. the problem is any naval exchange will result in losses, and the side that can build more ship will have an advance in an attrition war, US ain't going to do that...
@@lagrangewei with Xi proving to be such a genocidal Stalin wannabe, and threatening all his neighbours, Google the missile purchases of Japan, S Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines in the last few years. Literally THOUSANDS of the latest anti-ship , anti-aircraft, and anti-missile missiles are now pointed at China, because Xi is clearly a Han-chauvinist dictator bent on genocidal expansion. Look at Tibet and the Uighurs. Until he is replaced, all China's neighbours are united against China, with US backing, and US NUKES! Duh.
The PRC does a lot of creative counting when they claim to have the world's largest navy. They count ships that are part of their coast guard, as part of their navy, and also count dual use ships that are basically just freight ships. If the US counted its coast guard and government freight ships in the way the PRC does it would be the largest by total ships and massively larger by tonnage.
@J-99999 Have you not even seen how the Chinese build their own buildings and projects? The Chinese people themselves literally have a term called "tofu-dreg" for shoddily-made buildings and shit made quickly to cut costs and pocket the remainder. I trust the Chinese would be cutting corners on their ships, too, at this rate.
Yea I built 5 subs, 6 oil tankers, if a crew or people are motivated to build a ship, they could if known in war time, safely build a TAO class in like 6 months. But we don't live under threat so we workers get to take our time, paychecks get cut, economy hums but at your prescription and perception to the idea that the American work force is lazy, incompetent, or weak is severely limited in scope from articles online. I lived it, I know whats capable of our people, and I'll say their is lazyness and ignorance at job sites but majoritively the crews that run those ships can and will build shit so fast if needed to. Look up aircraft carrier turnaround times after being bombed in the 40's. In times of strife with zero danger at work of being bombed, we would demolish anyone the geographical position of America is why it's so strong not it's people. It's hard to kill people who are 7000 miles away. Let alone a population who hasn't seen the hardest of times, and don't want to. Don't blame them, death and destruction are all war brings. But capacity in the U.S. if awakened again would set the world off. We're to safe, to strong to just step on and the giant sleeps.... For now.
@@ProfessorPhysics2 You're just mad that not everyone has your western world view. Maybe there are people who are fine with buildings that regularly fall over in a stiff breeze, made from bricks that crumble at the slightest touch. You just hate China!
The real question is if China can help to secure the Persian Gulf sea lanes. If they cannot project power into their source of energy, then they can only defend themselves from immediate threats.
If they can't secure their shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, they will have to rely heavily on Russian energy which may not be enough to sustain them during war time (or peacetime for that matter.) Plus, Russia is not really a friend. They act the part, but in reality they hate eachothers guts. Furthermore, the Russian energy industry is suffering from brain drain and the lack of western equipment to maintain their oil and gas production. 5 years from there, Russia may only be able to produce half of what they currently produce.
@@RalarconableYes that's my understanding too especially in the Frozen areas the equipment is going bad very fast and no one knows what to do about it in Russia they just don't have the training and right now without advanced chips etc coming in they're in big trouble.
To be fair, the taiwan strait seems not to be a good place for US nuclear subs to have a battle. The US subs are powerful indeed, but the strait would be simply too shallow to operate for the subs. So in the imaginary head-on battlefield, which is to say the vast plains on the western island, the PLAN would easily choke the strait in both side of the strait with the small brown-water ships that all equipt with anti-sub kits. Then the only filed that might seem possible should be the deep ocean between taiwan and the second island chain. Just for information.
There is probably no need for the modern US nuclear powered submarines to get into torpedo range in order to attack marine targets anyway. They can stay comfortably outside the Strait and launch their Tomahawk cruise missiles and then slip away afterwards. The Ohio class can carry up to 154 Tomahawks. The Virginia class (Block V) can carry up to 40 Tomahawks. The anti-ship version of Tomahawk has range 500-700 km. It makes no sense for nuclear submarines to risk against mines, surface warships and diesel electric submarines in the relatively shallow waters of the Taiwan Strait.
One thing I feel the need to clarify is that China feels "hemmed in and constrained" by the island chains in the same way that Russia felt "hemmed in and constrained" by countries joining NATO. The only manner in which they are being obstructed is in terms of being able to invade their neighbors without repercussion. Imperialism disguised as victimhood, in other words.
Well....Every country is not innocent, at some point, all countries has been involved in criminal activities. Not a good model to apply morals too much on geo politics
You would feel hemmed in if you are surrounded by non friendly forces. And the US isn’t exactly playing nice so why wouldn’t they feel hemmed in? You treat someone like an enemy and they will act like one
China has natural oil reserves in North Eastern China and Xinjiang province, I wonder why this is never spoken about. China's reliance on Middle Eastern oil is overestimated to be honest. From a strategic perspective, the Chinese buy Middle Eastern oil so they don't use up their own. Japan in WW2 was dependant on Chinese oil fields in North Eastern China (Manchuria). The Chinese have Russia and Iran too, both can supply enough oil to fuel their war machine.
Because they do not have the capacity to fuel their internal economy. Why do you think they are stockpiling COAL these days? They already did the math and know they cannot "replace" imported oil in any meaningful way. And Russia can't build the pipelines needed to send more oil to China. Or do you imagine Putin will allow Xi to send crews into Siberia to build them? They already use small ships to move as much crude from the Arctic as they can to China.... they don't have any more ships! That supply is at peak right now. Same problems for Iran. The existing transport is maxed out. Building more capacity is not a fast or trivial exercise.
China consumes more than it can produce, that's why they are reliant on Middle Eastern oil. Japan was not dependent in Manchurian oil fields during WW2 because there was no technology to drill for these oil fields. There's a reason why the US's oil embargo in Japan was so devastating that they had to declare war on the US and go for the oil fields in South East Asia.
The US Replicator Initiative could have been mentioned. “. . . Attritable, autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands in multiple domains within the next 18-to-24 months”.
Number of ships, yes, weight on water, no. I think is like 2.2 million tonnes for China vs 4.4 million for the USA. Also, PLAN Aircraft Carriers are diesel carriers, easily tracked and heavily reliant on local supply ships (fuel primarily).
@@elmoheadDid that have relevance to the fact that US Carriers move in a group that includes resupply ships? And that (and this is important) WE KNOW WHERE MORE FOOD IS and can send more ships back and forth with supplies! It's almost like the US Navy has over 200 years of experience feeding its sailors and supplying its ships at sea. Go figure.
A quick correction. The term "Island Chain" or Island Chain Strategy was first conceived by American foreign policy statesman John Foster Dulles in 1951, during the Korean War and not by the Chinese in 1980's. It was a strategic maritime containment plan to surround the Soviet Union and China with naval bases in the West Pacific to project power and restrict sea access.
Actually what you said about China's submarine are incorrect. They are conventional submarines but they are actually very stealthy and quiet. Germany’s MTU actually supplies state-of-art engines for China’s submarines.
In fact, China can make its own engines, but Germany's MTU engine technology is mature and the price is acceptable. Because Germany follows the US policy of sanctioning China. Currently, the CHD-620 diesel engine made in China replaces the German MTU-396 engine.
The real issue is maintenance and other running costs. You can build all the ships you want, but when the people in your country get richer(and expect higher wages) and your economic growth slows down, can you afford to keep them running and manned?
China headwinds are just too strong. The maintenance bills on things like tofu dreg projects and the absolutely mad number of high speed railway lines will be coming due just as the population starts collapsing and economic growth is slowing. This when their only answer to boost growth is still starting new and massive infrastructure projects and trying to save the housing market. Ar the same time they want to challenge the West globally, build up a navy that can take on the US, build a self reliant and cutting edge chip industry, deal with the ageing population and BRI their way out of geographic constraints. Well good luck. I mean, I think the China challenge has peaked.
Exactly, look at all the us ships that were mothballed after ww2. Ships are extremely expensive to maintain and crew. Sure you can store them but that’s expensive also. The nature of technology advancement also makes this super expensive.
@@MD97531as you are saying this, the US is having roughly 1000 derailments per year. How many does China have? Few enough that every derailment will make it onto the news. That’s because Chinese rails were regularly maintained while the US ones... were not.
Lacking anti-ship missiles? US has more than just harpoon missiles. It has LRASM & NSM. Raytheon got the license to manufacture NSM and has deployed mobile launch platforms armed with NSM, tomahawk & SM-6. HACM, HAWC, PrSM, Peregrine, SIAW, AIM-260 and HALO are in production or going into production next year.
As a Chinese, I sometimes get tired of the quarrels on the Internet. On the Chinese Internet, people generally look down on Americans and are proud of their achievements. On the English-speaking Internet, people are generally dismissive of Chinese people and feel they are vulnerable. Contempt for each other can lead people to ignore the serious consequences of war.
Seems to me that China's best option for acheiving greater power and influence is to avoid war and be a good neighbor. Beefs with India are totally unnecessary and a waste of resources.
Lol. China are not the Anglo Saxons. They've been peaceful neighbors to the majority of countries around it for thousands of years. Were China a western civilization Asia and Australia would all be enslaved by now
No. Their navy can be hemmed at many choke points. They get most of their oil from the Middle East. If things go sideways, India can sink every tanker as they pass by. If they find a way to solve all these issues, they will still be hamstrung by their demographics. We are watching the final years of the China we currently know. They may experience another famine in the upcoming years.
@@bulkierwriter2772definitely but i doubt they can supply enough to run gaint nation like china atleast not yet. But now maybe there will be gaint pipelines directly from Siberia to central china
Multiple pipelines to Russian oil and gas fields can easily solve this problem. India is irrelevant here, they are also massively dependent on oil from the middle east.
the real question is, would india even be willing to sink Chinese ships on behalf of US? It should be remembered that india is not australia or UK, which are none other than US's dogs.
@@Aamirmhmd99In case of war those platforms and pipelines which will be very very long and very expensive and very difficult to build and that's assuming Russian oil keeps flowing which it's not going to be soon because no one's maintaining these systems and they are in the frozen tundra. So the hundreds of billions of dollars that China's going to spend to build these pipelines and get these oil rigs back online after they die will be a very easy target. Look at what happened to the nordstream pipeline just recently. You think in an all-out war that those won't be one of the first targets. Then good luck feeding your people. All you have to do is just leave Taiwan alone. You already stole Tibet Hong Kong and the uighur region. You call yourselves peaceful stop your expansionism and then everyone can have peace. Continue and good luck it's not going to happen
One thing that needs to be considered, is local superiority. China has home turf advantage and shorter supply lines. The US would fight far from home, and would need to concentrate it’s forces, living them vulnerable in other areas (Eg. Persian Gulf).
@@srdxxxI second this. What is exactly America's home turf? I would argue that America's home turf has extended to the second island chain with few interruptions for the past 100 years.
Can the US' "home" not be extended to Japan? I imagine it probably takes as long to transport military goods and equipment to Japan as it would for China to transport it to wherever it needs to be. As this video is about navies, it's also quite important that the US has been looking towards using Japanese dockyards for its ships (which is reasonable, as Japanese and American ships might as well be in the same navy and are made with each other in mind).
China imports massive amounts of food and fuel through maritime routes. They would need to leave their home turf to protect them. Although you are correct that in a purely military sense America's supply lines are longer, but that is planned for. How well it's planned for though, I don't know.
At about 2:39 to 2:43 of this video, the moderator suggests that the Republic of China was "established" on Taiwan island when the PRC was proclaimed, which was on Oct 1, 1949. Taiwan island was already returned to the Republic of China by the World War II allies in 1945. So the national capital of the Republic of China was merely moved to Taipei in 1949 as a temporary measure until the Nationalist could "retake" the mainland. It's not that the ROC was established in Taipei. It was established in 1911 on the mainland.
USA has actually dialed back on naval worldwide protection of economic shipping lanes, and this protection actually *helped* China‘s exporting business. USA still has *regional* naval protection for its allies and trading partners. We obviously “lose control” of USA worldwide interests, but, as a taxpayer, if you don‘t like what the USA is doing for you, you can pay your own way out.
But everyone is a US trade partner... I agree though, the USA coming out of WW2 as the only naval power still standing after the UK economic and imperial collapse and the destruction if Japan means everyone else has been largely complacent on ships and naval tech. E.G., Here in Canada, we have only frigate-class ships, and just recently finished a round of new shipbuilding for 6 frigates capable of patrolling the Arctic Ocean. The last time we built a new ship was 1991.... a 30 year gap where we did nothing. We run 80s-era submarines that, when decommissioned, get turned into amusement rides at marine parks. We had the chance to get 3 amphibious assault vessels/helicopter carriers built by the French for the Russians (the deal was pulled after the 2014 invasion of Crimea) that would have been a game changer for us but we walked away, saying it wasn't worth it. The unspoken attitude is that we don't need to worry about military spending, the USA does that. But with the recent American swing towards isolationism, it's interesting to see how that attitude is now changing and I wonder what it will be like the next time Russian subs enter our waters or aircraft buzz our commercial flights and the Americans say, "figure it out yourself".
@@Steadyaim101 And *everyone* (all these "trade partners") keep calling the U.S. imperialistic for having a Navy to secure shipping in the first place. They can start paying for their own protection, ungrateful bastards.
"USA has actually dialed back on naval worldwide protection of economic shipping lanes, and this protection actually helped China‘s exporting business." What a fake news when China's supposed ally like Iran is snatching their tankers WIthout US Navy protecting the global ocean safe for commerce whereby China can import raw materials from a continent away and to export their finished product to continent away, their economic model will collapse. With US Navy pulling out of seaway patrol expect more rogue nations and pirates to pillage China's shipping. And given most of Chinese naval ships uses unreliable German engines, wouldn't be able to dispatch a ship or two in contingency. And in aformetioned situation? Crickets from the US Navy. Why would we protect our enemy's interest?
@@jin_asap What a silly thing to say, of course you do. Those 300,000 troops are what keep countries like Iran and Russia from seizing oil tankers. Given the sheer number of countries that have to be dissuaded from hostile action against ships 300,000 isn't that much. Half of that alone is support staff, not even combat staff. Sorry but you're clearly ignorant.
China has a couple dozen more ships than the US does, but they don’t come close to the US in tonnage and fire Power. And the US Navy has the history and experience to back it up.
When you regularly sail your warships to the coast of another country by force, it is not freedom of navigation. It is provocation. The answer to your question is a definite yes. Sooner than you think. But only in China's backyard which is the South and East China Sea. As to the world oceans, unlikely and also China has no intention of being the world hegemon. Its biggest threat is not from the US which is manageable but rather, internal. Keeping is 1.4 billion population happy. Contrary to what you said, China anti-submarine warfare is extremely potent. Its submarine fleets are also closing the gap with the mainstay US submarines which are the Virginia Class(SSN). It is also not true that China conventional diesel electric AIP submarines are nosier than the Virginia Class. Diesel electric powered submarines are the quietest compare to the SSBN and SSN. The reason is because the nuclear reactor of both the SSN and SSBN cannot be shut off even in stealth mode whereas conventional submarine when switched to electric mode is extremely quiet.
Which of the US Friends is realistically a threat? China has Russia and Iran on its side which are major players in their respective regions. The US has dominion over Western Europe which is very weak militarily.
What is most concerning is that the newest Chinese ships are big, modern and very capable. While most are no match for US Navy ships. But the newest one are certainly big and over full enough to give the navy a serious challenge. Fast forward 20 years and factor in the rapid build up of Chinese shipyards and you easily see China quickly achieve real world parity to US Navy.
It'll take less time than 20 years. Remember that China is still growing day by day economically, while the US is drowning further and further in debt.
@@ernieleem77 China's shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than the United States. Specifically, Chinese shipyards have a manufacturing capacity of roughly 23,250,000 million tons, whereas U.S. shipyards have less than 100,000 tons.
The US Navy has centuries of "blue water" combat and doctrine experience. China has zero experience. Having a few more hulls doesn't mean they make a credible threat. The USN doesn't even need to directly confront the PLAN. All they have to do is "quarentine" the S. China Sea, then interdict all energy shipments to China. The PLAN has no real ability to operate beyond the second island chain nor beyond the Mellacca Str. Aviation will be a key component in any confrontation and China will not do well in that domain. They have zero experience in contemporary air combat operations. Another issue is basing of assets other than carriers. The Marianas Islands are a line of unsinkable aircraft carriers where America has operated from before against the Asian mainland and has done so off and on over the last 70 years or so. China would be very hard pressed to engage beyond the first island chain. They don't have the C3I capability that the US Navy has nor do they have the combat experiece. On paper China looks formidable, but so did the Russians vs. Ukraine and we see how that has worked.
Bit of a click bait strawman really. Interesting, but the analysis completely ignores the US's most potent and inarguably decisive advantage vs any and all adversaries; durable alliances with well resourced competent and motivated actors. Add the navies of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, India and Thailand to the game and the outcome is far less favorable for China.
With the exceptions of Japan and Australia, nobody in the region wants to have to choose sides between the United States and China. Siding with the loser in this conflict will have grave consequences, and maybe siding with the winner could as well in the short term. The other country that might actively take a side is Russia, but that probably would not be to the benefit of the United States.
the us is thousands of miles away but your "allies" are stone throw away from china and they would all prefer to be not the target of chinese missiles. i'd doubt even the us would want to fight china when they finally decide to take taiwan
In East Asia, no country will participate in the US war against China. Even Japan was worried that participating in the war would cause national disaster. It has only been less than a hundred years since Japan invaded China. Ordinary Chinese have no psychological burden to retaliate against Japan. Moreover, even if Japan assists the United States in participating in the war, it will not change the fact that the United States cannot defeat China in China's offshore waters. And Japan will suffer very serious consequences. The most direct one is the independence of the Ryukyu Islands (most of the U.S. military bases stationed in Japan are here, and Japan only has administrative districts without legal sovereignty). Moreover, the trade routes between Japan and other countries basically pass through the east coast of China. Once China blocks Japan, the Japanese economy will collapse.
Hegemony is such a weird word. I think the biggest thing to think about, and I know it’s hard for those that have a usual un-merited hatred towards the US. The US promotes free trade, promotes country’s to partake in "globalization." More countries in the world have enjoyed increased GDP’s than ever before. So what do you think is gonna happen when you have an autocracy/dictatorship running the global waters? How exactly will that be better or even equal to free trade?
The thing about the Chinese navy is that it's untested. On paper the navy is a formidable force, but the real question is how well they'll do in actual combat.
How to test? Test with whom? The only worthy opponent of Chinese navy is US navy. The 2 powers won't have direct military conflicts otherwise it will be the end of the world.
I don't understand how anti-ship ballistic missiles are supposed to work. Ships rarely stay in one place. You can't shoot very the ship is going to be either because as soon as the radar sees the very high flying ballistic missile they will change course, a ballistic missile can't.
"China is surrounded by 400 US military bases; US naval forces are on the doorstep of China. US missiles are pointed at China from Okinawa and southern Korea. There are no Chinese naval ships and no Chinese bases off California; there is no demonstrable Chinese military threat to the US, though China has made significant defensive preparations since Obama’s “pivot”. " - Quote: Journalist John Pilger - Aljazeera News Network. The US is threatening China, not the other way around.
There is an element of truth to that. But America is never, NEVER going to invade or attack China. For all the fighting we do, we don't just randomly go in shooting. It's aways a response to something someone does. If China just continues to trade with everyone on the planet and DOES NOT INVADE TAIWAN, the US won't ever attack them. No sane person thinks differently. They don't need a massive military buildup any more than Vietnam or Malaysia do. And it is always CHINA talking about how they have a new super weapon to take out American carriers, not the US saying anything about China. So even if the US is overwhelmingly dominant in the China Sea region... we're not making threats. But we are protecting our treaty allies. If China doesn't like that, maybe they should not be claiming the Nine Dash Line or building artificial islands off the Philippine coast.
Let us suppose that the USA's current strategy of using aircraft carriers and long range bombers fails, due to China employing sea denial tactics and improved defense against stealth aircraft. So the USA has to fall back to its inherent second strategy: Nuclear attack submarines against ultra large crude carriers in the Indian Ocean. This would be like the the Kreigsmarine happy times, but lasting forever, and being able to outmatch construction times relative to tonnage sunk by a hundred fold. Sorry, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea - we failed to protect you. Sorry productive capacity of East Asia - I guess you are too vulnerable. Sorry, Persian Gulf, I guess you need to sell all your oil to India, Europe, and Africa. Sorry American consumers, your inexpensive plastic crap is gone forever, and you have to buy from Mexico and South America. But the standard of living in North America will be largely unchanged, while there is famine and collapse in China.
@@titok77-o8j Yes. You have about 17% nuclear propelled submarines, vs USA having 100% nuclear propelled submarines. In any case, let us suppose that you use these submarines in commerce raiding, and between USA and China action all long distance ocean going transit stops. This is the exact situation I described that results in Chinese collapse, and American survival. Way to go!
There is quite a lot of corruption in the chinese military, with officers getting their jobs for the wrong reasons and lacking expertise, among other issues associated with corruption. You also got the issues arising when everybody are heavily concerned with prestige, rather than being strategical. Look at how badly information has been relayed in Russia's war, since the officers care so much about not getting into trouble, and the chinese chain of command works similarly in some ways, from what I can tell. Well really I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, I'm just raising a point since I know this is an issue to SOME extent for the chinese military. I am sure the US have these issues as well, I'm just saying that comparison (by someone smarter than me) is needed, if we want to know how strong their respective military are. Good video though, very informative.
How do you know about the corruption, you have inside information? The corruption inside the US military is insane literally multiple hundreds of billions of dollars black holes where nobody knows where the money went lol
China cannot even keep the USN much more than 100 kms away from its coastline, let alone challenge it for dominance on the high seas. Even if China break and project power through all of the Island chains, it would still only have achieved local parity in part of the Pacific. On the other hand, the USN roams almost every ocean and sea unchallenged.
Geography is not communist China's side. Reminiscent of Imperial Germany during WWI, they are vulnerable to blockade. The fleet may be able to sail, but will not necessarily be able to get back to home waters. If you study Operation Starvation, mine warfare is particularly devastating to a nation dependent on imports of raw materials and food. The Soviet Union managed to build a large navy, but then discovered it could not afford to maintain it.
*If US doesn't get more shipbuilding capacity ASAP, then yes!* China has over 200X the shipbuilding capacity as the US. All wars result in attrition. China can replace its losses & the US can't. In a kinetic war, China can afford to lose ships but the US cannot. It took 8 years to build the last US carrier. As the CSIS simulation showed, the US is depending on a stupid strategy of a single pyrrhic victory near Taiwan to act as "deterrence." Both America and its allies have become complacent and delusional in the US's ability to protect them in a full-scale war with China. If the US keeps refusing to scale up its shipbuilding and other military industrial capacity, it absolutely will lose a kinetic naval conflict with China, possibly losing force projection capabilities in the Indo-Pacific forever. The US is decades behind when it comes to building the capacity it needs to preserve its power projection. Not just ships, but heavy industry as well. Don't forget, China's decades-long shipbuilding capacity advantage also allowed it to build the world's largest merchant marine fleet as well. A fleet that has coordinated with PLAN in the past and that it is now giving weapons training.
You forget where China gets is raw supplies from. China imports 70% of its raw ore from Australia alone. You honestly think Australia will continue to send iron ore to China in the event of a war? Can't make ships without ore. Then there's fuel and food which China is the largest importer in the world of both of these but that is a whole problem in its own.
@@Nesstor01 Why do you think China has been stockpiling food, fuel, precious metals, and other raw materials of war in large quantities for the past few years? Why do you think China has been expanding trade infrastructure with Russia and continental Asia? You really think China can't function without Australia? Their current Australian trade is a replaceable convenience, not a necessity. If the US Navy is attrited down to a shadow of its current self (or feels too threatened to engage), then China can use the Indian Ocean as well. It may takes years, but the fact remains that China has the capacity to replace lost ships in a kinetic war with the US and the US does not.
@@MrManifolder 90% of imports for China still comes through ports so even if China establishes trade with other nations, China still has to traverse Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan and Pacific which US already controls these areas. China is one of the least self-sufficient countries in the world being a massive net importer of essentials like food and fuel.
@@MrManifolder China's expanding infrastructure will take decades to establish and with China's failing demographic due to One Child Policy, China doesn't have time they need.
@@MrManifolder Indian Ocean? Have you looked at the map recently? US owns multiple bases in the Indian Ocean and India is not an ally to China and will enforce a US blockade of China through the Strait of Malacca and Gulf of Oman.
thats a cool battlefield for there navy to fight on, the entire pacific. But no one will ever beat the US NAVY they have combat experience and probably have plans made centuries ago to win on it
Please…China just started using aircraft carriers 10 years ago and they have what, two? And their navy has many ships..the largest being less than half the size of the US smallest ships. The US military is built to reach across the globe and slap somebody. And after Pearl Harbor you can guess how equipped they are closer to home
There has not been any definitive proof the Chinese ballistic missiles can hit a moving target like a carrier. Making a seeker head work at hypersonic regime is very difficult not to mention the lack of time and maneuverability makes me think the Chinese is plain lying about their capabilities. Those missiles will likely only be useable on static targets.
You don't know that it doesn't mean no. In 2020, China test-fired Dongfeng 26b and hit a moving target of about 2,500 kilometers. And its estimated performance ranges from 4000km to 5000km.😅
i dont think so u.s.have soo amny allies each allies have soo manyfighter planes navyships thatif combined will becomea massive force not just unnumbers but in strategic locations that surrounds it.
you don't see the big picture. While the US thinks in terms of the next election cycle (2 yrs) or even quarterly profits, China thinks in terms of centuries. If I were in charge of China, firstly I wouldn't have done that stupid move of annexing the South China Sea, I just need to say that. But I would know that the nation with the strongest navy controls world finances. When the Spanish Empire fell the second strongest navy, the British RN, ruled the seas for the next several hundred years as the British Empire prospered. After WW2 the UK was spent and its navy shrank down to be a component of NATO while the US navy projected power from all oceans. Knowing this, China is most likely building a navy to begin learning lessons and projecting power into Africa. They might also test the Monroe Doctrine by sending forces to support South American insurgencies. (Monroe Doctrine says no European powers allowed in the Western Hemisphere.) China would be wise to continue its economic growth, maybe even become a democracy, and within 100 years the US might suffer a powerful economic failure resulting in the inability to fund its navy. And if Trump succeeds in making the US isolationist, then the USN disappears even faster.
China has a strong regional navy. Opposing China is two large navies. Japan and the United States. China has no regional friends other than North Korea.
American power is global, Chinese power concentration is the Pacific, that changes the calculus, very much in china's favour. Even roughly equally balanced force, but different concentration clearly favours China.
No scenario exists where China beats the US in the sea or the air. China would be able to hold its own in a defensive land war against an invading US army though (which is why the US would never wage a war like that in the first place). Chinese ships have a range of ~600 miles in perfect, non-battle conditions before they need to refuel, but they wouldn't be able to refuel if a war broke out. Australia can single-handedly close China's shipping lanes with its submarines; the United States can enforce a total blockade of Chinese imports (and exports for that matter) at the flick of a switch and that isn't hyperbole.
Even if China matched the amount of aircraft carriers of the USA China is unable to use them since they will fall apart like everything else they build china does not want to invest in technologies like the west did in order to become what the west is now but took centuries in the contrary china pushes to be a superpower in just a few decades by -forces intellectual property transfer from foreign companies and then copies them since they are unable to invent anything and what they produce is of shoddy quality: all gadgets made in china do not last and need to be replaced after a few uses -debt traps entire nations -forces organ transplants -oppresses its own nice productive citizen
Great video! Wonderful research, facts and details laid out very clearly. But I'm not sure I agree with their conclusions. Mostly because they ignored the very important question of "What does China Want?" versus "What does America Want?" I think China wants security at home and coastal defenses. They don't really want to replace America or assume any kind of "world policeman" role. I think America wants to protect the independence of allies in the region and globally. Unless China actually attacks Taiwan, there isn't that much overlap for them to want to fight over. Their goals can BOTH be achieved without anyone needing to try and sink a carrier. Also, they ignore the part where Japan, which currently has a BADASS local navy, would hardly sit by and ignore a Chinese attack against a US fleet. They have very well defended land bases with cruise missiles too. Any real strategy that leaves out how China's neighbors would react if they got aggressive with them is fatally flawed. It will never be a US-China war alone.
Diesel electric submarines are not necessarily more noisy, unless they operate far from base. Some designs have crept up on US carriers in wargames. They turn off the diesel engine and use silent electric motors when near a target. They recharge their batteries in safer waters using a diesel engine. Edit: Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about quiet diesel-electric AIP engines, please look at examples such as the chinese Yuan-class type 039A.
Phillipines granting the Pentagon access to NINE bases is going a long way toward putting the brakes on Chinese naval power. Japan doubling its military spending and promising to help the US if China attacks Taiwan also doesn't help China.
It’ll take more than that to break the largest army and navy in the world and the most factories and workforce in the world, if the Seventh fleet sails near Taiwan or Chinas coast they will be met by hypersonic missiles, costal artillery and carrier missiles. Btw China has air superiority over Taiwan and mainland China so good luck getting rid of those factories and the ports that have two hundred percent the ship building capacity America has.
@@bronzebackbassing18China is next door to Russia so the us will only waste time blocking straits just for oil and gas to come from Russia and from the Middle East through Russia.
Thank you for this very thorough and insightful analysis. 24:18 regarding the US submarine superiority posing a lethal threat to a hypothetical Chinese landing operation in Taiwan, Prof. Lyle Goldstein has pointed out that the Taiwan Strait is very shallow and narrow and therefore is not conducive to submarine warfare. The area could be easily and effectively mined, etc. to greatly hamper US submarine operations in the Taiwan Strait. The significant US submarine superiority is important in other contexts, but not so much with respect to a Chinese landing on Taiwan.
Is Prof Goldstein a military analyst or someone who read an ocean map with topography lines? Lots of people with uninformed opinions out there. Did they also note how few Chinese transports there are, which reduces the number of possible invading troops so low it's laughable to assume they could defeat the large Taiwanese Army? Did they note that the Taiwan Strait is barely 100 miles across and the US Carriers would hide behind the Island and launch fighters OVER Taiwan, not around it? Which gives them the benefit of Taiwan's excellent anti air defenses to thin out any Chinese attacks against the fleet? I'm not sure any reference to submarines really changes the difficulty China would face in trying to actually land troops on Taiwan.
@@markpukey8Prof. Goldstein of was the Chinese military expert for the US Naval War College for 20 years. He has obviously studied the issues in great detail.
@@markpukey8 Taiwan is within helicopter range of the mainland. it not a D-Day style attack. they are going to flatten the island with missile and land by air. and this idea that Taiwan has a "large army", Taiwan ended conscription years ago... there is no "grand army" left. what is worst is alot of their retired pilot and specialist is now working in the mainland due to higher pay in the civil sector of China, this greatly deplete Taiwan reserve manpower who are trained and skilled. it like you didn't watch this video, the first belt of anti ship missiles can hit 1800 km out, if you think the US carrier would hide behind Taiwan.. well that's why there are 2 sunken carrier in those wargames, they were hiding there and got rekt. the whole reason why US resort to arguing about using submarine is because its carrier can't enter the area of control... China's A2AD is too strong.
@@lagrangeweiIt's a war. Ships get sunk. That's why you have MORE SHIPS! Did you learn that the US alliance wins every single war game against China? Sunken carriers are bad (if you are American) but that sort of thing happens in a war. Did you read the part about all the Chinese losses while they fail to take Taiwan? And again... the part where they FAIL? Did you see any war games that allow US Stealth Bombers free rein to destroy large numbers of missile launchers and stockpiles of missiles? Reality will always be different from war games because the GAMES always have artificial limitations and arbitrary rules. By the way, what will our Asian allies be doing while China heroically launches all its missiles at our carriers?
@@markpukey8 First off, what country are you from and what do you actually know about US military or Chinese military? Not sure what war games you've been reading but all the war games conducted by the pentagon since 2017 shows the US losing every scenario. The latest war games ran by some think tanks showed the US losing 2 carriers and the Chinese losing many ships. However they did say that was under certain battlefield conditions that didn't allow the Chinese to use their full capabilities. I guess if you want to show a victory you can always handicap your enemy.
Mainland China's total shipbuilding tonnage will account for 55% of the world's total in 2022 There are 735 domestic shipbuilding companies in China, with a total of 529 shipbuilding docks and slipways of over 10,000 tons, including 56 large shipyards and slipways of over 100,000 tons. Among the 56 large shipyards and slipways, there are 20 with a capacity of 100,000 to 250,000 tons, 30 with a capacity of 300,000 tons, and six with a capacity of 500,000 tons. There are a total of 38 shipyards in China with a length of more than 304.5 meters and a width of more than 75 meters. Even taking the size of the U.S. Ford-class aircraft carrier (333 meters in total length and 77 meters in maximum width) as a standard, there are 34 Chinese shipyards that exceed the Ford class in both length and width. There are currently only five shipyards left in the United States that can build warships, and only one of them, Newport News Shipbuilding, can build aircraft carriers. Newport News Shipyard has only one dry dock that can build aircraft carriers. If war comes, the United States will not have the ability to build a second aircraft carrier in a short period of time. China is building a brand new shipyard with a total length of 565 meters. Once this shipyard is successfully completed, it will become the largest shipyard in the world. If China fully activates its "shipbuilding machine", it will be able to build 23.25 million tons of ships in a year. In comparison, the United States' annual production capacity is less than 100,000 tons.
Yes but you cannot deny that the Americans still has 100+ years of buildup and may still have a good shipbuilding industry and may also make alot during wartime See ww2, this time it's like two Americas who can both pump out alot of ships
No, sorry but that's just delusional talk. China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US. Modern warships are complex things to build, both time consuming and tech heavy. You cant just turn around as the US did in WW2 and expect to crank out destroyers in a few months. The US also does not have the skilled manpower to do this, building ships is a skilled job. All Chinese ship manufacturing has been designed as dual purpose, and can be switched from civilian to military quite quickly. In short, should China and the US both go to war production, the US would lose the race. Its not even close and US military leaders know this.@@akriegguardsman
In WW2, shipyards and factories were targets for strategic bombings. With modern precision weapons, it is inconceivable that either side of a major war would leave the shipyards alone to build warships. Even Ukraine managed to attack the heavily defended shipyard in Sevastopol, destroying warships and damaging dry dock. So the assumption that China or the US can build warships at the pace of peacetime is a bit optimistic.
It's interesting to see history in the making and the balance of global power changing. I just hope a China-USA conflict won't escalate in a full on nuclear war.
I don't expect nukes will be used in any way greater than tactical as china has significantly less nukes than the us thus they would not be able to complete a total and strategic attack, and the us would likely be unwilling to launch a strategic attack
I honestly dont expect either the US or China to be nuke happy, especially since both China and the US only maintain stockpiles to use as a deterrent from other nations from using nukes against them (or in the US's case, their nuclear defense umbrella too)
Depends what China does, but I believe there will be war over Taiwan. China is also not a global power even by 2030, their are too reliant on the west economically, and have few alies and even fewer competent ones. They will be strong in their military, but won't be able to extend their power projection.
Looks like the Imperial German Navy building up from whatever coastal naval force the Prussians had. Building up so much that they began to rival the premier naval power of the time; British Royal Navy.
We should stop sidelining the local actors. Taiwan and Japan in particular. When the drums will start beating, I don't see Japan sticking with its current constitution. Rearmement is already happening behind the scene. A video should be dedicated to this topic, because war in Taiwan will not just be a US/China clash in the Pacific. All the local countries will eventually have to take a side. None of them are Switzerland.
Exactly and I think that's the point a lot of these China Hawks don't get. The Japan defense Force is probably all I shouldn't even say probably is definitely more advanced than anything China has. They basically have aircraft carriers but they're smaller than regular aircraft carriers they're more like our helicopter carriers. But they have f-35s submarines and very well trained military they are the fourth largest economy in the world and have amazing manufacturing powers themselves. It would be very quick and easy for them to expand their Navy and they are actually focused on that right now because of China. China has caused an arms race in the region. Vietnam has upped its game and Philippines has just starting to as well as Australia. Plus the UK and probably many NATO countries would support the US. So if it were only the US against China especially if the US were dumb enough to keep it ships too close to the Chinese shores than China might win. But the aircraft carriers will be probably on the other side of Japan but definitely on the other side of Taiwan not inside the straits of Taiwan. On top of that as people imagine there's many US military bases all over the world that could be used for staging and help with assisting. On top of that knee immediate solution would be to cut off the streets of mullica from any oil tankers getting through to China first step. Second step use submarines and stand off weapons to help the Taiwanese to destroy the Chinese Navy. Remember Ukraine has been training heavily since 2014 for this conflict with the West and been equipped by the west since about the same time. Taiwan has been preparing for a conflict with China for 80 years now. They call it the porcupine theory meaning when China tries to get their dirty little hands on this porcupine they're going to get poked very badly. Of course Taiwan could not beat China by themselves. But they have hardened bunkers with their jets on the far side of the mountain and country dug in to the side of the mountains very deeply. They keep those there So would China use this first rounds of missiles they won't lose most of their Air Force. They'll keep it intact for later in the fight. On top of that they have prepared to not only use their highways for hair strips but to actually repair their airstrips and highways very quickly to be able to use them again if they do get bombed. So they should be able to take off from almost anywhere in the country and land almost anywhere in the country. I think the US in the past is called it an unsinkable aircraft carrier. On top of that pretty much all of the beaches and landing points which there are few of have very steep mountains just past the beach. That means the Taiwanese will be in a superior position firing down on the naval ships before they even hit the shore. But on top of that they have sharp plants at the bottom of the shore as well as many other tools just to deter them from getting on the beach. The Taiwanese have trained in anti-missile defense and they have excellent hackers and computer skills on top of that. Remember to that these Chinese ships will be sailing 150 km from the Chinese coast to Taiwan that takes minimum 2 hours probably longer for each ship to get over what do you think will happen to those ships in between mainland China and Taiwan. Many of them will sink and the Chinese will wonder why they are sinking because the superior submarine force will probably be the focus of the West in the beginning. Plus like I said they have standoff weapons that could also destroy their ships. So they're not going to move an aircraft carrier in close right at the beginning of the conflict. They'll do that later after they've destroyed all the Sam sites and taken out most of the Chinese Navy. This will end very badly for China and is a big mistake. Please go talk to your Chinese government and stop them from this madness
@@Drew-sy2bn"But the aircraft carriers will be probably on the other side of Japan but definitely on the other side of Taiwan not inside the straits of Taiwan" ABSOLUTELY! So many people just don't grasp that! You're absolutely correct. We would use the enormous Taiwanese anti-air defenses to thin out any attacks against US ships. But paragraphs are still your friend. I got lost halfway through your post. Just saying.
Yea but I don't think japan wants either side to win, china for obvious reasons but if china is too weak the Americans will fuck them too America won't defend Taiwan, china is a nuclear power, TSMC machines would probably just be destroyed, Nuclear powers won't go to war with eachother of at Least I hope not
@@markpukey8 I know I reply on a lot of stuff and I do voice to text so I get too lazy to break it up into paragraphs. I don't earn any money from it I just state my opinion. I should break it up but unfortunately I don't.
Я из России, могу ответить по существу, Россия находится там, где и всегда находилась, т.е, на своем месте, и да у нас все в порядке, если вы имеете виду конфликт с Укроинной который вы нам устроили, то да, должен признать,это неприятно, приходится убивать "братский" нам народ, ни Россия ни Украинцы, ни когда, вам этого ни простят!.... Это вяло-текущая сво, даже не война.У войны другие законы.Если считаете что, призедент В.В Путин блефует, говоря о превосходстве России, в плане военных технологий, тогда для чего вообще нужен был проект Украина?...
Naval strategy is build strategy. Sadly the US no longer has the infrastructure in place to recreate a contemporary equivalent to their 1941 to 1945 build program.
No. USA did not have the need until now. Big difference. During WW2 USA had to mobilize as well and build up from nothing. You start teasing the monster you will get a big fight. Give them a challenge and you will see what will happen. They will find a way how to win.
@@Aamirmhmd99 That is a misconception: WW2 US didn't have a quality disadvantage on a ship-to-ship basis (in some cases, they are far more advanced such as in FCS and radars). Only slight disadvantages in some experience and pre-war numbers in the Pacific.
@@jdamsel8212 That’s debatable. Whilst Germans ships were often superior in armour and protection, British ships were superior in firepower and speed. That doesn’t mean they were of better quality, they just had differing naval doctrines. The crews and officers in both navies being mostly equal in skill and capability.
Are you still living in the last century? Learn more about the total tonnage of the fleet launched by China, about 3 to 4 years. The tonnage of Chinese warships launched is the total of British warships.😅
@@倾城空城 Most are coastal combat ships. Would get absolutely obliterated by combined arms/tactics available from aircraft carrier battle groups. All you need is a couple anti-ship cruise missiles from F-35s to sink a ship, and Chinese jets/pilots are far worse than F-35s/American pilots. If tonnage was the only thing that mattered, China would be able to project power past the first island chain. And yet they cant.
The number one thing we have to remember is COMPETENCY. Not to rag on Chinese Navy veterans, but the US Navy has been tried and tested since before WW2 era. You cannot copy and paste a blueprint of competent sailors, combat engineers, fighter pilots, electronic technicians.
The US was a largely unexperienced force at the beginning of WW2 (minus Great War veterans), but they managed pretty good against the Nazis and Imperial Japan
I am sure a swarm of people will shill about how china has the most competent sailors in the world then make some claim about transgenderism ruining the u.s military. on the first point is that no plan survives contact with the enemy and no military is proven until it cuts its teeth on something, look at Ukraine where Russia was expected to roll over the country in a few weeks at most even with western aid. on the second claim which is a red herring regarding trans genders ruining the military these claims seem to come from either the lowest IQ members of the conservative public who think that anybody who is anti western is somehow on their side or these people are foreign nationals of usually China, Russia or India though a few others tend to jump on the bandwagon too. they simply regurgitate stuff their own state media tells them on mass. I would like to state that I am a conservative and right wing + an american but I am getting tired of the grifters on the right that latch onto any enemy of whoever they don't like then pushing them as some sort of savior of the west.
@@sgufanboy you forget the extensive training and war games the sailors go through, which are extremely expensive to do in the volume that the US does them and most navies straight up skip them save one or two once in a blue moon.
@@sgufanboy yes, but you’d be comparing a relatively inexperienced US with a relatively experienced Japanese navy (US had the UK to help them A LOT with the Nazi threat). Whereas, today, you have a VERY experienced US navy against an inexperienced Chinese navy.
China needs desperately to break out of the first and second Island chain so they can.........................trade with the USA, Canada, Mexico and South America??
BINGO! Great post! What does the winner of a war gain by their victory? Access to raw materials and trade opportunities. What MORE can China gain in those areas? The US already guarantees that kind of access to everyone in the world, all on America's Dime!
They really did give a great intro for context, didn't they? I don't agree with their conclusions, but I appreciate their lead in and honesty so much that they got me to subscribe to the channel.
Who cares ? The ramifications of China's naval build up can't truly be known for another ten or fifteen years, it takes a long time period for these kinds of changes to have full effect. So many different events can alter that outcome as to be incalculable, so trying to guess is just that, a wild ass guess.
![Vuhledar About to Fall. Ukraine Smashes Russian Depots [Mapped]](/img/n.gif)
🟢 Try Speakly with first 7 days for free and get 60% discount on an annual subscription: speakly.app.link/goodtimesbadtimes
📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT
➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
SSK are harder to detect than SSN... SSK can turn off their engine, SSN cannot just turn off their reactor. so you are wrong in detection. SSK are proven to be harder to detect in US wargame against other european states that operate SSK... to the degree that SSK manage to sink the US carrier undetected in those exercises... the issue with SSK is their defensive in nature lacking the range of SSN. however they are actually superior when near their home waters...
furthermore the claim that SSN can be a threat to China in a Taiwan scenario can only be spoken by armchair admiral that does not understand what the island chain problem actually is. the island chain create limited opening to which can be ambush, the Chinese just need to drop sonar between the island and they can find the sub, while within the china seas, the water isn't deep enough for submarine to hide against patroling anti sub aircraft... in fact the only reason why US wargame priortise the sub isn't because the sub are effective, but because the rest of the fleet is ineffective against chinese forces due to the overwhelming superiority of chinese missiles. thus the subs are the best thing USN has, however that doesn't mean they are great in a confined seas that limit where they can hide and move.
this idea that US can win in Taiwan is a mirage. the reason why westpac is reorganised to indopac was so the westpac fleet can flee to the indian ocean and threaten chinese shipping there well away from the china seas. US strategic plans against China in a Taiwan scenario is not to intervene directly but a blockade far from China, to be an itch that China cannot scratch. just like how US does not intervene directly in the Ukraine war but freeze Russia trade overseas.
the problem is any naval exchange will result in losses, and the side that can build more ship will have an advance in an attrition war, US ain't going to do that...
@@lagrangewei with Xi proving to be such a genocidal Stalin wannabe, and threatening all his neighbours, Google the missile purchases of Japan, S Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines in the last few years. Literally THOUSANDS of the latest anti-ship , anti-aircraft, and anti-missile missiles are now pointed at China, because Xi is clearly a Han-chauvinist dictator bent on genocidal expansion. Look at Tibet and the Uighurs. Until he is replaced, all China's neighbours are united against China, with US backing, and US NUKES! Duh.
The PRC does a lot of creative counting when they claim to have the world's largest navy. They count ships that are part of their coast guard, as part of their navy, and also count dual use ships that are basically just freight ships. If the US counted its coast guard and government freight ships in the way the PRC does it would be the largest by total ships and massively larger by tonnage.
Americans: when China does bad the numbers are real, when they do good the numbers are fake, which is it?
@@J_X999because it 😮higher quality, more technology, meaning more time, more maintenance and more money. Shocking right?
@J-99999 Have you not even seen how the Chinese build their own buildings and projects? The Chinese people themselves literally have a term called "tofu-dreg" for shoddily-made buildings and shit made quickly to cut costs and pocket the remainder. I trust the Chinese would be cutting corners on their ships, too, at this rate.
Yea I built 5 subs, 6 oil tankers, if a crew or people are motivated to build a ship, they could if known in war time, safely build a TAO class in like 6 months. But we don't live under threat so we workers get to take our time, paychecks get cut, economy hums but at your prescription and perception to the idea that the American work force is lazy, incompetent, or weak is severely limited in scope from articles online. I lived it, I know whats capable of our people, and I'll say their is lazyness and ignorance at job sites but majoritively the crews that run those ships can and will build shit so fast if needed to. Look up aircraft carrier turnaround times after being bombed in the 40's. In times of strife with zero danger at work of being bombed, we would demolish anyone the geographical position of America is why it's so strong not it's people. It's hard to kill people who are 7000 miles away. Let alone a population who hasn't seen the hardest of times, and don't want to. Don't blame them, death and destruction are all war brings. But capacity in the U.S. if awakened again would set the world off. We're to safe, to strong to just step on and the giant sleeps.... For now.
@@ProfessorPhysics2 You're just mad that not everyone has your western world view. Maybe there are people who are fine with buildings that regularly fall over in a stiff breeze, made from bricks that crumble at the slightest touch. You just hate China!
The real question is if China can help to secure the Persian Gulf sea lanes. If they cannot project power into their source of energy, then they can only defend themselves from immediate threats.
Why would china need to do that if they have Iran as an ally?
@@erozionzeall6371that's what the chinese hope. Iran has had half its navy sunk at once in the past so they're not super promising as a naval ally
@@erozionzeall6371 most of their oil imports arrive via sea, that's why.
If they can't secure their shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, they will have to rely heavily on Russian energy which may not be enough to sustain them during war time (or peacetime for that matter.) Plus, Russia is not really a friend. They act the part, but in reality they hate eachothers guts. Furthermore, the Russian energy industry is suffering from brain drain and the lack of western equipment to maintain their oil and gas production. 5 years from there, Russia may only be able to produce half of what they currently produce.
@@RalarconableYes that's my understanding too especially in the Frozen areas the equipment is going bad very fast and no one knows what to do about it in Russia they just don't have the training and right now without advanced chips etc coming in they're in big trouble.
To be fair, the taiwan strait seems not to be a good place for US nuclear subs to have a battle. The US subs are powerful indeed, but the strait would be simply too shallow to operate for the subs. So in the imaginary head-on battlefield, which is to say the vast plains on the western island, the PLAN would easily choke the strait in both side of the strait with the small brown-water ships that all equipt with anti-sub kits. Then the only filed that might seem possible should be the deep ocean between taiwan and the second island chain. Just for information.
There is probably no need for the modern US nuclear powered submarines to get into torpedo range in order to attack marine targets anyway. They can stay comfortably outside the Strait and launch their Tomahawk cruise missiles and then slip away afterwards. The Ohio class can carry up to 154 Tomahawks. The Virginia class (Block V) can carry up to 40 Tomahawks. The anti-ship version of Tomahawk has range 500-700 km. It makes no sense for nuclear submarines to risk against mines, surface warships and diesel electric submarines in the relatively shallow waters of the Taiwan Strait.
One thing I feel the need to clarify is that China feels "hemmed in and constrained" by the island chains in the same way that Russia felt "hemmed in and constrained" by countries joining NATO.
The only manner in which they are being obstructed is in terms of being able to invade their neighbors without repercussion. Imperialism disguised as victimhood, in other words.
Mnhm yes but living under ruSSia and china regime s*cks a*s
True
Well....Every country is not innocent, at some point, all countries has been involved in criminal activities. Not a good model to apply morals too much on geo politics
You would feel hemmed in if you are surrounded by non friendly forces. And the US isn’t exactly playing nice so why wouldn’t they feel hemmed in? You treat someone like an enemy and they will act like one
@@dugowf766 That cuts both ways. China has treated the US like an enemy, and so the feeling is being reciprocated.
China has natural oil reserves in North Eastern China and Xinjiang province, I wonder why this is never spoken about. China's reliance on Middle Eastern oil is overestimated to be honest. From a strategic perspective, the Chinese buy Middle Eastern oil so they don't use up their own.
Japan in WW2 was dependant on Chinese oil fields in North Eastern China (Manchuria).
The Chinese have Russia and Iran too, both can supply enough oil to fuel their war machine.
Besides china can build Eurasian railways
Because they do not have the capacity to fuel their internal economy. Why do you think they are stockpiling COAL these days? They already did the math and know they cannot "replace" imported oil in any meaningful way.
And Russia can't build the pipelines needed to send more oil to China. Or do you imagine Putin will allow Xi to send crews into Siberia to build them? They already use small ships to move as much crude from the Arctic as they can to China.... they don't have any more ships! That supply is at peak right now. Same problems for Iran. The existing transport is maxed out. Building more capacity is not a fast or trivial exercise.
if this is the case, why do they import so much?
二战期间日本并没有在东北发现石油，所以铤而走险一路向南到印度尼西亚抢石油， 直到战争最后失败
China consumes more than it can produce, that's why they are reliant on Middle Eastern oil. Japan was not dependent in Manchurian oil fields during WW2 because there was no technology to drill for these oil fields. There's a reason why the US's oil embargo in Japan was so devastating that they had to declare war on the US and go for the oil fields in South East Asia.
The US Replicator Initiative could have been mentioned. “. . . Attritable, autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands in multiple domains within the next 18-to-24 months”.
Number of ships, yes, weight on water, no. I think is like 2.2 million tonnes for China vs 4.4 million for the USA. Also, PLAN Aircraft Carriers are diesel carriers, easily tracked and heavily reliant on local supply ships (fuel primarily).
I agree but us carriers also limited by their fleet with fuel. Carriers never go anywhere alone.
Good to hear that US sailors don't need to eat, and that F35s are also nuclear powered.
@@elmoheadDid that have relevance to the fact that US Carriers move in a group that includes resupply ships? And that (and this is important) WE KNOW WHERE MORE FOOD IS and can send more ships back and forth with supplies!
It's almost like the US Navy has over 200 years of experience feeding its sailors and supplying its ships at sea. Go figure.
@@markpukey8 nuclear powered crafts doesn't mean no docking for 25 years. It's not the limiter to sailing.
@@elmoheadYou are the only person implying otherwise. I said our navy knows where to go to get more food and supplies. That includes the subs.
A quick correction. The term "Island Chain" or Island Chain Strategy was first conceived by American foreign policy statesman John Foster Dulles in 1951, during the Korean War and not by the Chinese in 1980's. It was a strategic maritime containment plan to surround the Soviet Union and China with naval bases in the West Pacific to project power and restrict sea access.
GTBT really has some of the best maps on YT. May I know where can I get maps like the one at 0:37?
"Lets hope that a similar verification does not occur in the Strait of Taiwan" - You mean let's hope CCP's calculations will be right?
Actually what you said about China's submarine are incorrect. They are conventional submarines but they are actually very stealthy and quiet. Germany’s MTU actually supplies state-of-art engines for China’s submarines.
In fact, China can make its own engines, but Germany's MTU engine technology is mature and the price is acceptable. Because Germany follows the US policy of sanctioning China. Currently, the CHD-620 diesel engine made in China replaces the German MTU-396 engine.
The German MTU-396 engine is not the most advanced engine, but it has good stability, mature technology, and a relatively suitable price.
Great video!
The real issue is maintenance and other running costs. You can build all the ships you want, but when the people in your country get richer(and expect higher wages) and your economic growth slows down, can you afford to keep them running and manned?
Perun made a really nice episode on that couple of weeks ago. I recommend the channel, great military economics reviews
As we see in the USN, nope
China headwinds are just too strong. The maintenance bills on things like tofu dreg projects and the absolutely mad number of high speed railway lines will
be coming due just as the population starts collapsing and economic growth is slowing. This when their only answer to boost growth is still starting new and massive infrastructure projects and trying to save the housing market. Ar the same time they want to challenge the West globally, build up a navy that can take on the US, build a self reliant and cutting edge chip industry, deal with the ageing population and BRI their way out of geographic constraints. Well good luck. I mean, I think the China challenge has peaked.
Exactly, look at all the us ships that were mothballed after ww2. Ships are extremely expensive to maintain and crew. Sure you can store them but that’s expensive also. The nature of technology advancement also makes this super expensive.
@@MD97531as you are saying this, the US is having roughly 1000 derailments per year. How many does China have? Few enough that every derailment will make it onto the news. That’s because Chinese rails were regularly maintained while the US ones... were not.
Lacking anti-ship missiles? US has more than just harpoon missiles. It has LRASM & NSM. Raytheon got the license to manufacture NSM and has deployed mobile launch platforms armed with NSM, tomahawk & SM-6. HACM, HAWC, PrSM, Peregrine, SIAW, AIM-260 and HALO are in production or going into production next year.
As a Chinese, I sometimes get tired of the quarrels on the Internet. On the Chinese Internet, people generally look down on Americans and are proud of their achievements. On the English-speaking Internet, people are generally dismissive of Chinese people and feel they are vulnerable. Contempt for each other can lead people to ignore the serious consequences of war.
蛮夷畏威而不畏德，你的友好和忍让只会被当成软弱可欺，朝鲜战争带来的和平期马上就要过去了，我们需要面对全新的挑战
There has been nothing to disprove that you aren't
@@千江-x9h 我真不是友好，我是觉得现在氛围很不正常，经济也很糟糕
@@千江-x9h如果我们没有核武，他们有可能把第一岛链放在中国的边缘上！1949年前，美国英国的军舰自由进入中国的内河！
@@AI-ih5or 全世界都在观望最终的结果，赢者得到一切
Seems to me that China's best option for acheiving greater power and influence is to avoid war and be a good neighbor. Beefs with India are totally unnecessary and a waste of resources.
Lol. China are not the Anglo Saxons. They've been peaceful neighbors to the majority of countries around it for thousands of years. Were China a western civilization Asia and Australia would all be enslaved by now
No. Their navy can be hemmed at many choke points. They get most of their oil from the Middle East. If things go sideways, India can sink every tanker as they pass by. If they find a way to solve all these issues, they will still be hamstrung by their demographics. We are watching the final years of the China we currently know. They may experience another famine in the upcoming years.
Russia has plenty of oil and gas and the Middle East can smuggle its stuff through Central Asia.
@@bulkierwriter2772definitely but i doubt they can supply enough to run gaint nation like china atleast not yet. But now maybe there will be gaint pipelines directly from Siberia to central china
Multiple pipelines to Russian oil and gas fields can easily solve this problem. India is irrelevant here, they are also massively dependent on oil from the middle east.
the real question is, would india even be willing to sink Chinese ships on behalf of US? It should be remembered that india is not australia or UK, which are none other than US's dogs.
@@Aamirmhmd99In case of war those platforms and pipelines which will be very very long and very expensive and very difficult to build and that's assuming Russian oil keeps flowing which it's not going to be soon because no one's maintaining these systems and they are in the frozen tundra. So the hundreds of billions of dollars that China's going to spend to build these pipelines and get these oil rigs back online after they die will be a very easy target. Look at what happened to the nordstream pipeline just recently. You think in an all-out war that those won't be one of the first targets. Then good luck feeding your people. All you have to do is just leave Taiwan alone. You already stole Tibet Hong Kong and the uighur region. You call yourselves peaceful stop your expansionism and then everyone can have peace. Continue and good luck it's not going to happen
One thing that needs to be considered, is local superiority. China has home turf advantage and shorter supply lines. The US would fight far from home, and would need to concentrate it’s forces, living them vulnerable in other areas (Eg. Persian Gulf).
That's true, but it has been true for 200 years. That's what the US Navy is built for. They need to do it better, but that's what they do.
@@srdxxxI second this. What is exactly America's home turf? I would argue that America's home turf has extended to the second island chain with few interruptions for the past 100 years.
Can the US' "home" not be extended to Japan? I imagine it probably takes as long to transport military goods and equipment to Japan as it would for China to transport it to wherever it needs to be. As this video is about navies, it's also quite important that the US has been looking towards using Japanese dockyards for its ships (which is reasonable, as Japanese and American ships might as well be in the same navy and are made with each other in mind).
China imports massive amounts of food and fuel through maritime routes. They would need to leave their home turf to protect them. Although you are correct that in a purely military sense America's supply lines are longer, but that is planned for. How well it's planned for though, I don't know.
@@anotherboatyep thats what overseas bases are for. for "checkpoint" in logistics.
Never dissapointed.. Even better than caspian report.
Just beautifull - chef kiss
At about 2:39 to 2:43 of this video, the moderator suggests that the Republic of China was "established" on Taiwan island when the PRC was proclaimed, which was on Oct 1, 1949. Taiwan island was already returned to the Republic of China by the World War II allies in 1945. So the national capital of the Republic of China was merely moved to Taipei in 1949 as a temporary measure until the Nationalist could "retake" the mainland. It's not that the ROC was established in Taipei. It was established in 1911 on the mainland.
USA has actually dialed back on naval worldwide protection of economic shipping lanes, and this protection actually *helped* China‘s exporting business. USA still has *regional* naval protection for its allies and trading partners. We obviously “lose control” of USA worldwide interests, but, as a taxpayer, if you don‘t like what the USA is doing for you, you can pay your own way out.
But everyone is a US trade partner... I agree though, the USA coming out of WW2 as the only naval power still standing after the UK economic and imperial collapse and the destruction if Japan means everyone else has been largely complacent on ships and naval tech. E.G., Here in Canada, we have only frigate-class ships, and just recently finished a round of new shipbuilding for 6 frigates capable of patrolling the Arctic Ocean. The last time we built a new ship was 1991.... a 30 year gap where we did nothing. We run 80s-era submarines that, when decommissioned, get turned into amusement rides at marine parks. We had the chance to get 3 amphibious assault vessels/helicopter carriers built by the French for the Russians (the deal was pulled after the 2014 invasion of Crimea) that would have been a game changer for us but we walked away, saying it wasn't worth it. The unspoken attitude is that we don't need to worry about military spending, the USA does that. But with the recent American swing towards isolationism, it's interesting to see how that attitude is now changing and I wonder what it will be like the next time Russian subs enter our waters or aircraft buzz our commercial flights and the Americans say, "figure it out yourself".
@@Steadyaim101 And *everyone* (all these "trade partners") keep calling the U.S. imperialistic for having a Navy to secure shipping in the first place. They can start paying for their own protection, ungrateful bastards.
"USA has actually dialed back on naval worldwide protection of economic shipping lanes, and this protection actually helped China‘s exporting business."
What a fake news when China's supposed ally like Iran is snatching their tankers
WIthout US Navy protecting the global ocean safe for commerce whereby China can import raw materials from a continent away and to export their finished product to continent away, their economic model will collapse. With US Navy pulling out of seaway patrol expect more rogue nations and pirates to pillage China's shipping. And given most of Chinese naval ships uses unreliable German engines, wouldn't be able to dispatch a ship or two in contingency.
And in aformetioned situation? Crickets from the US Navy. Why would we protect our enemy's interest?
@@chrisjackson1215 Secure shipping my ass. You don't need 300k+ troops stationed around the area to protect the lanes.
@@jin_asap What a silly thing to say, of course you do. Those 300,000 troops are what keep countries like Iran and Russia from seizing oil tankers. Given the sheer number of countries that have to be dissuaded from hostile action against ships 300,000 isn't that much. Half of that alone is support staff, not even combat staff.
Sorry but you're clearly ignorant.
When it comes to appreciating the benefits of island chains, China has to be at least fifty years behind the USA . . .
China has a couple dozen more ships than the US does, but they don’t come close to the US in tonnage and fire Power. And the US Navy has the history and experience to back it up.
And new lgbtq generals to back it up
Chinas ships are tiny. USA can build those really quick too. It’s the big ones that count
The economy will crash before those are put to use 🤦🏽♂️
美国海军50年来的经验就是打打治安战
Only time will tell
When you regularly sail your warships to the coast of another country by force, it is not freedom of navigation. It is provocation.
The answer to your question is a definite yes. Sooner than you think. But only in China's backyard which is the South and East China Sea. As to the world oceans, unlikely and also China has no intention of being the world hegemon. Its biggest threat is not from the US which is manageable but rather, internal. Keeping is 1.4 billion population happy.
Contrary to what you said, China anti-submarine warfare is extremely potent. Its submarine fleets are also closing the gap with the mainstay US submarines which are the Virginia Class(SSN). It is also not true that China conventional diesel electric AIP submarines are nosier than the Virginia Class. Diesel electric powered submarines are the quietest compare to the SSBN and SSN. The reason is because the nuclear reactor of both the SSN and SSBN cannot be shut off even in stealth mode whereas conventional submarine when switched to electric mode is extremely quiet.
No. America doesn’t go it alone. Being numerically bigger than her doesn’t mean you can take on the US backed by friends.
Just like in 1950 when nuclear superpower USA had 18 allies vs single backwards poverty China yet still lost.. good luck today.
Which of the US Friends is realistically a threat? China has Russia and Iran on its side which are major players in their respective regions. The US has dominion over Western Europe which is very weak militarily.
Tech and experience of navy is what matters, not just number of ships!
When USA has more ship,you will say oh yes,USA has more,of course win.
What experience the USN has? All the people who has experience fighting naval warfare are only 70+ y/o
What is most concerning is that the newest Chinese ships are big, modern and very capable. While most are no match for US Navy ships. But the newest one are certainly big and over full enough to give the navy a serious challenge. Fast forward 20 years and factor in the rapid build up of Chinese shipyards and you easily see China quickly achieve real world parity to US Navy.
It'll take less time than 20 years. Remember that China is still growing day by day economically, while the US is drowning further and further in debt.
Chinas economy is actually starting to contract. No covid policy really hurt them and their reputation for unfair trade is also putting people off.
That is assuming the USA stop producing ships and weapons while China is accelerating their production.
@@ernieleem77 China's shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than the United States. Specifically, Chinese shipyards have a manufacturing capacity of roughly 23,250,000 million tons, whereas U.S. shipyards have less than 100,000 tons.
The US Navy has centuries of "blue water" combat and doctrine experience. China has zero experience. Having a few more hulls doesn't mean they make a credible threat. The USN doesn't even need to directly confront the PLAN. All they have to do is "quarentine" the S. China Sea, then interdict all energy shipments to China. The PLAN has no real ability to operate beyond the second island chain nor beyond the Mellacca Str. Aviation will be a key component in any confrontation and China will not do well in that domain. They have zero experience in contemporary air combat operations. Another issue is basing of assets other than carriers. The Marianas Islands are a line of unsinkable aircraft carriers where America has operated from before against the Asian mainland and has done so off and on over the last 70 years or so. China would be very hard pressed to engage beyond the first island chain. They don't have the C3I capability that the US Navy has nor do they have the combat experiece. On paper China looks formidable, but so did the Russians vs. Ukraine and we see how that has worked.
one of the best yt chanels, always a pleaseure to watch your content bro 🫡
Bit of a click bait strawman really. Interesting, but the analysis completely ignores the US's most potent and inarguably decisive advantage vs any and all adversaries; durable alliances with well resourced competent and motivated actors. Add the navies of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, India and Thailand to the game and the outcome is far less favorable for China.
With the exceptions of Japan and Australia, nobody in the region wants to have to choose sides between the United States and China. Siding with the loser in this conflict will have grave consequences, and maybe siding with the winner could as well in the short term. The other country that might actively take a side is Russia, but that probably would not be to the benefit of the United States.
the us is thousands of miles away but your "allies" are stone throw away from china and they would all prefer to be not the target of chinese missiles. i'd doubt even the us would want to fight china when they finally decide to take taiwan
In East Asia, no country will participate in the US war against China. Even Japan was worried that participating in the war would cause national disaster. It has only been less than a hundred years since Japan invaded China. Ordinary Chinese have no psychological burden to retaliate against Japan. Moreover, even if Japan assists the United States in participating in the war, it will not change the fact that the United States cannot defeat China in China's offshore waters. And Japan will suffer very serious consequences. The most direct one is the independence of the Ryukyu Islands (most of the U.S. military bases stationed in Japan are here, and Japan only has administrative districts without legal sovereignty). Moreover, the trade routes between Japan and other countries basically pass through the east coast of China. Once China blocks Japan, the Japanese economy will collapse.
@@snowlee-ml7rr 🤮😂😂🤟
Hegemony is such a weird word. I think the biggest thing to think about, and I know it’s hard for those that have a usual un-merited hatred towards the US. The US promotes free trade, promotes country’s to partake in "globalization." More countries in the world have enjoyed increased GDP’s than ever before. So what do you think is gonna happen when you have an autocracy/dictatorship running the global waters? How exactly will that be better or even equal to free trade?
Свободной торговли не существует.
Увы, это - миф, навязанный США, которые имеют флот.
Раскрою Вам правду, американцы всегда найдут косяки у того, кто захочет свободно торговать по морю.
The thing about the Chinese navy is that it's untested. On paper the navy is a formidable force, but the real question is how well they'll do in actual combat.
Same with the USN tho
How to test? Test with whom? The only worthy opponent of Chinese navy is US navy. The 2 powers won't have direct military conflicts otherwise it will be the end of the world.
War changes as technology changes and at one time the carrier replaced the Battleship, and the missile will inevitably replace the carrier.
How much of China's food is imported in case of a naval defeat or blockade?
Also, let's hope that we don't get to experience a real version of "Fallout."
I don't understand how anti-ship ballistic missiles are supposed to work. Ships rarely stay in one place. You can't shoot very the ship is going to be either because as soon as the radar sees the very high flying ballistic missile they will change course, a ballistic missile can't.
It’s easy for China to say they added ships to their military fleet, while in reality some of them are simple fishing boats.
If you considered fishing boards, China navy size is 10x of US size.
the chinese can build 5x more destroyers during the same time compared to the US.
@@bussolini6307utterly wrong, US & China built Zumwalt and Type 055 exactly the same timeframe despite US zumwalt is bigger
On paper for sure.
It's one thing to have a thick accent, it's another to add syllables and reinvent words' rhythms.
"China is surrounded by 400 US military bases; US naval forces are on the doorstep of China. US missiles are pointed at China from Okinawa and southern Korea.
There are no Chinese naval ships and no Chinese bases off California; there is no demonstrable Chinese military threat to the US, though China has made significant defensive preparations since Obama’s “pivot”. " - Quote: Journalist John Pilger - Aljazeera News Network.
The US is threatening China, not the other way around.
There is an element of truth to that. But America is never, NEVER going to invade or attack China. For all the fighting we do, we don't just randomly go in shooting. It's aways a response to something someone does. If China just continues to trade with everyone on the planet and DOES NOT INVADE TAIWAN, the US won't ever attack them. No sane person thinks differently. They don't need a massive military buildup any more than Vietnam or Malaysia do.
And it is always CHINA talking about how they have a new super weapon to take out American carriers, not the US saying anything about China.
So even if the US is overwhelmingly dominant in the China Sea region... we're not making threats. But we are protecting our treaty allies. If China doesn't like that, maybe they should not be claiming the Nine Dash Line or building artificial islands off the Philippine coast.
LAZERS
But how about the quality?
Let us suppose that the USA's current strategy of using aircraft carriers and long range bombers fails, due to China employing sea denial tactics and improved defense against stealth aircraft. So the USA has to fall back to its inherent second strategy: Nuclear attack submarines against ultra large crude carriers in the Indian Ocean. This would be like the the Kreigsmarine happy times, but lasting forever, and being able to outmatch construction times relative to tonnage sunk by a hundred fold. Sorry, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea - we failed to protect you. Sorry productive capacity of East Asia - I guess you are too vulnerable. Sorry, Persian Gulf, I guess you need to sell all your oil to India, Europe, and Africa. Sorry American consumers, your inexpensive plastic crap is gone forever, and you have to buy from Mexico and South America. But the standard of living in North America will be largely unchanged, while there is famine and collapse in China.
核潜艇攻击我们，难道是觉得我们没有核潜艇😅
@@titok77-o8j Yes. You have about 17% nuclear propelled submarines, vs USA having 100% nuclear propelled submarines. In any case, let us suppose that you use these submarines in commerce raiding, and between USA and China action all long distance ocean going transit stops. This is the exact situation I described that results in Chinese collapse, and American survival. Way to go!
@@richdobbs6595 中国也有核潜艇，就是数量没有美国多。常规动力潜艇也能在中东航行，只是需要补给船配合。中国进口多是因为产品卖到全世界，战时中国资源可以自给自足。
There is quite a lot of corruption in the chinese military, with officers getting their jobs for the wrong reasons and lacking expertise, among other issues associated with corruption. You also got the issues arising when everybody are heavily concerned with prestige, rather than being strategical. Look at how badly information has been relayed in Russia's war, since the officers care so much about not getting into trouble, and the chinese chain of command works similarly in some ways, from what I can tell.
Well really I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, I'm just raising a point since I know this is an issue to SOME extent for the chinese military. I am sure the US have these issues as well, I'm just saying that comparison (by someone smarter than me) is needed, if we want to know how strong their respective military are.
Good video though, very informative.
How do you know about the corruption, you have inside information? The corruption inside the US military is insane literally multiple hundreds of billions of dollars black holes where nobody knows where the money went lol
not now, come back in ten year's time(most likely less), it will be a different ball game.
Not now but later
China cannot even keep the USN much more than 100 kms away from its coastline, let alone challenge it for dominance on the high seas. Even if China break and project power through all of the Island chains, it would still only have achieved local parity in part of the Pacific. On the other hand, the USN roams almost every ocean and sea unchallenged.
中国的火箭弹都打到30公里了，你知道你在说什么吗😂
@@titok77-o8j Sorry I don't speak Russian, could you write it again in English?
在讨论这些的时候，有一个大前提: 台湾问题是中国的内政，关美国什么事？美国怎么这么多戏？如果美国可以在自己的国土上安居乐业，不去到处引发颜色革命，世界就不会有这么多战争了
Geography is not communist China's side. Reminiscent of Imperial Germany during WWI, they are vulnerable to blockade. The fleet may be able to sail, but will not necessarily be able to get back to home waters. If you study Operation Starvation, mine warfare is particularly devastating to a nation dependent on imports of raw materials and food. The Soviet Union managed to build a large navy, but then discovered it could not afford to maintain it.
LIVE THE KERALA.
*If US doesn't get more shipbuilding capacity ASAP, then yes!* China has over 200X the shipbuilding capacity as the US. All wars result in attrition. China can replace its losses & the US can't. In a kinetic war, China can afford to lose ships but the US cannot. It took 8 years to build the last US carrier. As the CSIS simulation showed, the US is depending on a stupid strategy of a single pyrrhic victory near Taiwan to act as "deterrence." Both America and its allies have become complacent and delusional in the US's ability to protect them in a full-scale war with China.
If the US keeps refusing to scale up its shipbuilding and other military industrial capacity, it absolutely will lose a kinetic naval conflict with China, possibly losing force projection capabilities in the Indo-Pacific forever. The US is decades behind when it comes to building the capacity it needs to preserve its power projection. Not just ships, but heavy industry as well. Don't forget, China's decades-long shipbuilding capacity advantage also allowed it to build the world's largest merchant marine fleet as well. A fleet that has coordinated with PLAN in the past and that it is now giving weapons training.
You forget where China gets is raw supplies from. China imports 70% of its raw ore from Australia alone. You honestly think Australia will continue to send iron ore to China in the event of a war? Can't make ships without ore. Then there's fuel and food which China is the largest importer in the world of both of these but that is a whole problem in its own.
@@Nesstor01 Why do you think China has been stockpiling food, fuel, precious metals, and other raw materials of war in large quantities for the past few years? Why do you think China has been expanding trade infrastructure with Russia and continental Asia? You really think China can't function without Australia? Their current Australian trade is a replaceable convenience, not a necessity.
If the US Navy is attrited down to a shadow of its current self (or feels too threatened to engage), then China can use the Indian Ocean as well. It may takes years, but the fact remains that China has the capacity to replace lost ships in a kinetic war with the US and the US does not.
@@MrManifolder 90% of imports for China still comes through ports so even if China establishes trade with other nations, China still has to traverse Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan and Pacific which US already controls these areas. China is one of the least self-sufficient countries in the world being a massive net importer of essentials like food and fuel.
@@MrManifolder China's expanding infrastructure will take decades to establish and with China's failing demographic due to One Child Policy, China doesn't have time they need.
@@MrManifolder Indian Ocean? Have you looked at the map recently? US owns multiple bases in the Indian Ocean and India is not an ally to China and will enforce a US blockade of China through the Strait of Malacca and Gulf of Oman.
It certainly will be done , no doubt about it.
I don't see how, given the US overwhelming geographic advantages, and China's geographic handicaps.
Pretty sure in a few decades they can handle them on a regional level that they want.
diesel eletric subs are harder to detect
we cant sleep on drone and counter drone warfare's role in the naval competition of usa and china.
No, not any time soon. I think the USA will retain its hegemony for awhile
thats a cool battlefield for there navy to fight on, the entire pacific. But no one will ever beat the US NAVY they have combat experience and probably have plans made centuries ago to win on it
Please…China just started using aircraft carriers 10 years ago and they have what, two? And their navy has many ships..the largest being less than half the size of the US smallest ships. The US military is built to reach across the globe and slap somebody. And after Pearl Harbor you can guess how equipped they are closer to home
China has 3 aircraft carriers now
You did not mention china current serious evonomic problems
Can they avoid mouse traps?
USA busy with eastern Europe and middle east
No unless they destroy the whole world 🌍
There has not been any definitive proof the Chinese ballistic missiles can hit a moving target like a carrier. Making a seeker head work at hypersonic regime is very difficult not to mention the lack of time and maneuverability makes me think the Chinese is plain lying about their capabilities. Those missiles will likely only be useable on static targets.
You don't know that it doesn't mean no. In 2020, China test-fired Dongfeng 26b and hit a moving target of about 2,500 kilometers. And its estimated performance ranges from 4000km to 5000km.😅
i dont think so u.s.have soo amny allies each allies have soo manyfighter planes navyships thatif combined will becomea massive force not just unnumbers but in strategic locations that surrounds it.
you don't see the big picture. While the US thinks in terms of the next election cycle (2 yrs) or even quarterly profits, China thinks in terms of centuries.
If I were in charge of China, firstly I wouldn't have done that stupid move of annexing the South China Sea, I just need to say that.
But I would know that the nation with the strongest navy controls world finances. When the Spanish Empire fell the second strongest navy, the British RN, ruled the seas for the next several hundred years as the British Empire prospered. After WW2 the UK was spent and its navy shrank down to be a component of NATO while the US navy projected power from all oceans.
Knowing this, China is most likely building a navy to begin learning lessons and projecting power into Africa. They might also test the Monroe Doctrine by sending forces to support South American insurgencies. (Monroe Doctrine says no European powers allowed in the Western Hemisphere.)
China would be wise to continue its economic growth, maybe even become a democracy, and within 100 years the US might suffer a powerful economic failure resulting in the inability to fund its navy.
And if Trump succeeds in making the US isolationist, then the USN disappears even faster.
Nope. They're gonna fuck around, and then, they're gonna find out.
China has a strong regional navy. Opposing China is two large navies. Japan and the United States. China has no regional friends other than North Korea.
uh.... so Russia is a loser in your eyes?
Quality over quantity lol
China should construct a new generation of navy centered around battleships
Boats for sale
American power is global, Chinese power concentration is the Pacific, that changes the calculus, very much in china's favour.
Even roughly equally balanced force, but different concentration clearly favours China.
China does not seek global domination. China seeks to become the regional superpower and eventually have a navy that will control the pacific
Ausies give the iron ores 😂😂😂
If it does, then we will have a new troublesome problem.
No scenario exists where China beats the US in the sea or the air. China would be able to hold its own in a defensive land war against an invading US army though (which is why the US would never wage a war like that in the first place). Chinese ships have a range of ~600 miles in perfect, non-battle conditions before they need to refuel, but they wouldn't be able to refuel if a war broke out. Australia can single-handedly close China's shipping lanes with its submarines; the United States can enforce a total blockade of Chinese imports (and exports for that matter) at the flick of a switch and that isn't hyperbole.
Even if China matched the amount of aircraft carriers of the USA China is unable to use them since they will fall apart like everything else they build
china does not want to invest in technologies like the west did in order to become what the west is now but took centuries
in the contrary china pushes to be a superpower in just a few decades by
-forces intellectual property transfer from foreign companies and then copies them since they are unable to invent anything and what they produce is of shoddy quality: all gadgets made in china do not last and need to be replaced after a few uses
-debt traps entire nations
-forces organ transplants
-oppresses its own nice productive citizen
yes,but China already been there for thousands years.
中国在几千年时间都是超级大国，仅仅在200年落后了，现在要回到自己的位置而已
...NO...
Great video! Wonderful research, facts and details laid out very clearly. But I'm not sure I agree with their conclusions. Mostly because they ignored the very important question of "What does China Want?" versus "What does America Want?"
I think China wants security at home and coastal defenses. They don't really want to replace America or assume any kind of "world policeman" role. I think America wants to protect the independence of allies in the region and globally. Unless China actually attacks Taiwan, there isn't that much overlap for them to want to fight over. Their goals can BOTH be achieved without anyone needing to try and sink a carrier.
Also, they ignore the part where Japan, which currently has a BADASS local navy, would hardly sit by and ignore a Chinese attack against a US fleet. They have very well defended land bases with cruise missiles too. Any real strategy that leaves out how China's neighbors would react if they got aggressive with them is fatally flawed. It will never be a US-China war alone.
Navy !!!!!!!
Has already ended.
Ayo bro just changed the soundtrack 💯💯💯💯
I miss the dun dun dun dun duh dun dun dun duh dun dun dun duh dun dun dun duh.
Diesel electric submarines are not necessarily more noisy, unless they operate far from base. Some designs have crept up on US carriers in wargames. They turn off the diesel engine and use silent electric motors when near a target. They recharge their batteries in safer waters using a diesel engine.
Edit: Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about quiet diesel-electric AIP engines, please look at examples such as the chinese Yuan-class type 039A.
China can't even keep their submarines out of their own traps😅
Sorry, diesel subs ARE more noisy than nuclear or AIP subs. Period. Fact.
@@ericbeattie761says the navy which drives their subs into the ocean ground
@@John_Doe448 isnt that china? didnt china recently had one of its submarines get caught in a trap and all the sailors died?
@@wotltkfkdgo no, it was the US who mapped out the ocean floor incorrectly and collided with it with their sub
As Asians , prefer China look after SCS not US
Phillipines granting the Pentagon access to NINE bases is going a long way toward putting the brakes on Chinese naval power.
Japan doubling its military spending and promising to help the US if China attacks Taiwan also doesn't help China.
It’ll take more than that to break the largest army and navy in the world and the most factories and workforce in the world, if the Seventh fleet sails near Taiwan or Chinas coast they will be met by hypersonic missiles, costal artillery and carrier missiles. Btw China has air superiority over Taiwan and mainland China so good luck getting rid of those factories and the ports that have two hundred percent the ship building capacity America has.
@@bulkierwriter2772the USA and the Allies just need to blockade a few straits and there goes China.
@@bronzebackbassing18Oh no where can they get fuel
Russia: uh hmm 😊
@@bulkierwriter2772the USA doesn’t rely on Russian oil…
@@bronzebackbassing18China is next door to Russia so the us will only waste time blocking straits just for oil and gas to come from Russia and from the Middle East through Russia.
Thank you for this very thorough and insightful analysis. 24:18 regarding the US submarine superiority posing a lethal threat to a hypothetical Chinese landing operation in Taiwan, Prof. Lyle Goldstein has pointed out that the Taiwan Strait is very shallow and narrow and therefore is not conducive to submarine warfare. The area could be easily and effectively mined, etc. to greatly hamper US submarine operations in the Taiwan Strait. The significant US submarine superiority is important in other contexts, but not so much with respect to a Chinese landing on Taiwan.
Is Prof Goldstein a military analyst or someone who read an ocean map with topography lines? Lots of people with uninformed opinions out there. Did they also note how few Chinese transports there are, which reduces the number of possible invading troops so low it's laughable to assume they could defeat the large Taiwanese Army?
Did they note that the Taiwan Strait is barely 100 miles across and the US Carriers would hide behind the Island and launch fighters OVER Taiwan, not around it? Which gives them the benefit of Taiwan's excellent anti air defenses to thin out any Chinese attacks against the fleet?
I'm not sure any reference to submarines really changes the difficulty China would face in trying to actually land troops on Taiwan.
@@markpukey8Prof. Goldstein of was the Chinese military expert for the US Naval War College for 20 years. He has obviously studied the issues in great detail.
@@markpukey8 Taiwan is within helicopter range of the mainland. it not a D-Day style attack. they are going to flatten the island with missile and land by air. and this idea that Taiwan has a "large army", Taiwan ended conscription years ago... there is no "grand army" left. what is worst is alot of their retired pilot and specialist is now working in the mainland due to higher pay in the civil sector of China, this greatly deplete Taiwan reserve manpower who are trained and skilled.
it like you didn't watch this video, the first belt of anti ship missiles can hit 1800 km out, if you think the US carrier would hide behind Taiwan.. well that's why there are 2 sunken carrier in those wargames, they were hiding there and got rekt. the whole reason why US resort to arguing about using submarine is because its carrier can't enter the area of control... China's A2AD is too strong.
@@lagrangeweiIt's a war. Ships get sunk. That's why you have MORE SHIPS! Did you learn that the US alliance wins every single war game against China? Sunken carriers are bad (if you are American) but that sort of thing happens in a war.
Did you read the part about all the Chinese losses while they fail to take Taiwan? And again... the part where they FAIL?
Did you see any war games that allow US Stealth Bombers free rein to destroy large numbers of missile launchers and stockpiles of missiles? Reality will always be different from war games because the GAMES always have artificial limitations and arbitrary rules.
By the way, what will our Asian allies be doing while China heroically launches all its missiles at our carriers?
@@markpukey8 First off, what country are you from and what do you actually know about US military or Chinese military? Not sure what war games you've been reading but all the war games conducted by the pentagon since 2017 shows the US losing every scenario. The latest war games ran by some think tanks showed the US losing 2 carriers and the Chinese losing many ships. However they did say that was under certain battlefield conditions that didn't allow the Chinese to use their full capabilities. I guess if you want to show a victory you can always handicap your enemy.
Mainland China's total shipbuilding tonnage will account for 55% of the world's total in 2022
There are 735 domestic shipbuilding companies in China, with a total of 529 shipbuilding docks and slipways of over 10,000 tons, including 56 large shipyards and slipways of over 100,000 tons. Among the 56 large shipyards and slipways, there are 20 with a capacity of 100,000 to 250,000 tons, 30 with a capacity of 300,000 tons, and six with a capacity of 500,000 tons.
There are a total of 38 shipyards in China with a length of more than 304.5 meters and a width of more than 75 meters. Even taking the size of the U.S. Ford-class aircraft carrier (333 meters in total length and 77 meters in maximum width) as a standard, there are 34 Chinese shipyards that exceed the Ford class in both length and width. There are currently only five shipyards left in the United States that can build warships, and only one of them, Newport News Shipbuilding, can build aircraft carriers. Newport News Shipyard has only one dry dock that can build aircraft carriers. If war comes, the United States will not have the ability to build a second aircraft carrier in a short period of time.
China is building a brand new shipyard with a total length of 565 meters. Once this shipyard is successfully completed, it will become the largest shipyard in the world.
If China fully activates its "shipbuilding machine", it will be able to build 23.25 million tons of ships in a year. In comparison, the United States' annual production capacity is less than 100,000 tons.
Yes but you cannot deny that the Americans still has 100+ years of buildup and may still have a good shipbuilding industry and may also make alot during wartime
See ww2, this time it's like two Americas who can both pump out alot of ships
No, sorry but that's just delusional talk. China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US. Modern warships are complex things to build, both time consuming and tech heavy. You cant just turn around as the US did in WW2 and expect to crank out destroyers in a few months. The US also does not have the skilled manpower to do this, building ships is a skilled job. All Chinese ship manufacturing has been designed as dual purpose, and can be switched from civilian to military quite quickly. In short, should China and the US both go to war production, the US would lose the race. Its not even close and US military leaders know this.@@akriegguardsman
In WW2, shipyards and factories were targets for strategic bombings. With modern precision weapons, it is inconceivable that either side of a major war would leave the shipyards alone to build warships. Even Ukraine managed to attack the heavily defended shipyard in Sevastopol, destroying warships and damaging dry dock. So the assumption that China or the US can build warships at the pace of peacetime is a bit optimistic.
It's interesting to see history in the making and the balance of global power changing. I just hope a China-USA conflict won't escalate in a full on nuclear war.
I don't expect nukes will be used in any way greater than tactical as china has significantly less nukes than the us thus they would not be able to complete a total and strategic attack, and the us would likely be unwilling to launch a strategic attack
I honestly dont expect either the US or China to be nuke happy, especially since both China and the US only maintain stockpiles to use as a deterrent from other nations from using nukes against them (or in the US's case, their nuclear defense umbrella too)
Even Nuke War. All Out War. Okay. ❤💙👍
Depends what China does, but I believe there will be war over Taiwan. China is also not a global power even by 2030, their are too reliant on the west economically, and have few alies and even fewer competent ones. They will be strong in their military, but won't be able to extend their power projection.
Looks like the Imperial German Navy building up from whatever coastal naval force the Prussians had. Building up so much that they began to rival the premier naval power of the time; British Royal Navy.
We should stop sidelining the local actors. Taiwan and Japan in particular.
When the drums will start beating, I don't see Japan sticking with its current constitution. Rearmement is already happening behind the scene.
A video should be dedicated to this topic, because war in Taiwan will not just be a US/China clash in the Pacific.
All the local countries will eventually have to take a side. None of them are Switzerland.
And everybody will be Belgium...
Exactly and I think that's the point a lot of these China Hawks don't get. The Japan defense Force is probably all I shouldn't even say probably is definitely more advanced than anything China has. They basically have aircraft carriers but they're smaller than regular aircraft carriers they're more like our helicopter carriers. But they have f-35s submarines and very well trained military they are the fourth largest economy in the world and have amazing manufacturing powers themselves. It would be very quick and easy for them to expand their Navy and they are actually focused on that right now because of China. China has caused an arms race in the region. Vietnam has upped its game and Philippines has just starting to as well as Australia. Plus the UK and probably many NATO countries would support the US. So if it were only the US against China especially if the US were dumb enough to keep it ships too close to the Chinese shores than China might win. But the aircraft carriers will be probably on the other side of Japan but definitely on the other side of Taiwan not inside the straits of Taiwan. On top of that as people imagine there's many US military bases all over the world that could be used for staging and help with assisting. On top of that knee immediate solution would be to cut off the streets of mullica from any oil tankers getting through to China first step. Second step use submarines and stand off weapons to help the Taiwanese to destroy the Chinese Navy. Remember Ukraine has been training heavily since 2014 for this conflict with the West and been equipped by the west since about the same time. Taiwan has been preparing for a conflict with China for 80 years now. They call it the porcupine theory meaning when China tries to get their dirty little hands on this porcupine they're going to get poked very badly. Of course Taiwan could not beat China by themselves. But they have hardened bunkers with their jets on the far side of the mountain and country dug in to the side of the mountains very deeply. They keep those there So would China use this first rounds of missiles they won't lose most of their Air Force. They'll keep it intact for later in the fight. On top of that they have prepared to not only use their highways for hair strips but to actually repair their airstrips and highways very quickly to be able to use them again if they do get bombed. So they should be able to take off from almost anywhere in the country and land almost anywhere in the country. I think the US in the past is called it an unsinkable aircraft carrier. On top of that pretty much all of the beaches and landing points which there are few of have very steep mountains just past the beach. That means the Taiwanese will be in a superior position firing down on the naval ships before they even hit the shore. But on top of that they have sharp plants at the bottom of the shore as well as many other tools just to deter them from getting on the beach. The Taiwanese have trained in anti-missile defense and they have excellent hackers and computer skills on top of that. Remember to that these Chinese ships will be sailing 150 km from the Chinese coast to Taiwan that takes minimum 2 hours probably longer for each ship to get over what do you think will happen to those ships in between mainland China and Taiwan. Many of them will sink and the Chinese will wonder why they are sinking because the superior submarine force will probably be the focus of the West in the beginning. Plus like I said they have standoff weapons that could also destroy their ships. So they're not going to move an aircraft carrier in close right at the beginning of the conflict. They'll do that later after they've destroyed all the Sam sites and taken out most of the Chinese Navy. This will end very badly for China and is a big mistake. Please go talk to your Chinese government and stop them from this madness
@@Drew-sy2bn"But the aircraft carriers will be probably on the other side of Japan but definitely on the other side of Taiwan not inside the straits of Taiwan"
ABSOLUTELY! So many people just don't grasp that! You're absolutely correct. We would use the enormous Taiwanese anti-air defenses to thin out any attacks against US ships.
But paragraphs are still your friend. I got lost halfway through your post. Just saying.
Yea but I don't think japan wants either side to win, china for obvious reasons but if china is too weak the Americans will fuck them too
America won't defend Taiwan, china is a nuclear power, TSMC machines would probably just be destroyed, Nuclear powers won't go to war with eachother of at Least I hope not
@@markpukey8 I know I reply on a lot of stuff and I do voice to text so I get too lazy to break it up into paragraphs. I don't earn any money from it I just state my opinion. I should break it up but unfortunately I don't.
"Will china finally-"
Heard the same questions about russia surpassing the US, and look where russia is now
Shhh, you're going to trigger the russki sympathisers.
No one ever said that, least of all USA. Russia isn't China, neither is Japan or anyone else. China is incomparable to anyone. India included.
I’m pretty sure plenty of Englanders had once said the same of the US, pointing to the defeat of France and Germany as examples.
Я из России, могу ответить по существу, Россия находится там, где и всегда находилась, т.е, на своем месте, и да у нас все в порядке, если вы имеете виду конфликт с Укроинной который вы нам устроили, то да, должен признать,это неприятно, приходится убивать "братский" нам народ, ни Россия ни Украинцы, ни когда, вам этого ни простят!.... Это вяло-текущая сво, даже не война.У войны другие законы.Если считаете что, призедент В.В Путин блефует, говоря о превосходстве России, в плане военных технологий, тогда для чего вообще нужен был проект Украина?...
Surpassing does not mean that one party grows stronger, perhaps it may mean that the other party becomes weaker
Thanks for your work, GTBT! Really glad to see a new video
Naval strategy is build strategy. Sadly the US no longer has the infrastructure in place to recreate a contemporary equivalent to their 1941 to 1945 build program.
No. USA did not have the need until now. Big difference. During WW2 USA had to mobilize as well and build up from nothing. You start teasing the monster you will get a big fight. Give them a challenge and you will see what will happen. They will find a way how to win.
@@mariajones8304 shipyards of today are in China and S. Korea. That was not the case in 1937
Is it just me, or does the world look more and more like a war game scenario.
Always has been.
Its called manufacturing consent
one big checkers board
the history is cyclic...
Quality is more important than quantity in naval warfare. China is nowhere near the US just yet.
China rules it’s backyard, that includes Taiwan.
Tell that to Japan in WW2.
@@Aamirmhmd99 That is a misconception: WW2 US didn't have a quality disadvantage on a ship-to-ship basis (in some cases, they are far more advanced such as in FCS and radars). Only slight disadvantages in some experience and pre-war numbers in the Pacific.
Not always. Germans had higher quality ships than the UK in WW1 and lost the naval war.
@@jdamsel8212 That’s debatable. Whilst Germans ships were often superior in armour and protection, British ships were superior in firepower and speed. That doesn’t mean they were of better quality, they just had differing naval doctrines. The crews and officers in both navies being mostly equal in skill and capability.
China has NEVER interrupted maritime navigation, so the US mentality of protecting freedom of navigation is absurd.
China can maybe challenge American Naval hegemony 100km from its coast at best. Not much more
It is now 2023!
@@jimchang231doesn't change, China military are grossly behind US
Are you still living in the last century? Learn more about the total tonnage of the fleet launched by China, about 3 to 4 years. The tonnage of Chinese warships launched is the total of British warships.😅
@@倾城空城 Most are coastal combat ships. Would get absolutely obliterated by combined arms/tactics available from aircraft carrier battle groups. All you need is a couple anti-ship cruise missiles from F-35s to sink a ship, and Chinese jets/pilots are far worse than F-35s/American pilots. If tonnage was the only thing that mattered, China would be able to project power past the first island chain. And yet they cant.
The number one thing we have to remember is COMPETENCY. Not to rag on Chinese Navy veterans, but the US Navy has been tried and tested since before WW2 era.
You cannot copy and paste a blueprint of competent sailors, combat engineers, fighter pilots, electronic technicians.
The US was a largely unexperienced force at the beginning of WW2 (minus Great War veterans), but they managed pretty good against the Nazis and Imperial Japan
I am sure a swarm of people will shill about how china has the most competent sailors in the world then make some claim about transgenderism ruining the u.s military.
on the first point is that no plan survives contact with the enemy and no military is proven until it cuts its teeth on something, look at Ukraine where Russia was expected to roll over the country in a few weeks at most even with western aid.
on the second claim which is a red herring regarding trans genders ruining the military these claims seem to come from either the lowest IQ members of the conservative public who think that anybody who is anti western is somehow on their side or these people are foreign nationals of usually China, Russia or India though a few others tend to jump on the bandwagon too. they simply regurgitate stuff their own state media tells them on mass. I would like to state that I am a conservative and right wing + an american but I am getting tired of the grifters on the right that latch onto any enemy of whoever they don't like then pushing them as some sort of savior of the west.
Experience doesn't make a difference if missiles have put most major vessels to the bottom of the sea
@@sgufanboy you forget the extensive training and war games the sailors go through, which are extremely expensive to do in the volume that the US does them and most navies straight up skip them save one or two once in a blue moon.
@@sgufanboy yes, but you’d be comparing a relatively inexperienced US with a relatively experienced Japanese navy (US had the UK to help them A LOT with the Nazi threat).
Whereas, today, you have a VERY experienced US navy against an inexperienced Chinese navy.
China needs desperately to break out of the first and second Island chain so they can.........................trade with the USA, Canada, Mexico and South America??
BINGO! Great post!
What does the winner of a war gain by their victory? Access to raw materials and trade opportunities. What MORE can China gain in those areas? The US already guarantees that kind of access to everyone in the world, all on America's Dime!
The moment I heard “100 years of humiliation” and “opium war”, I know this TH-camr did his research. 🎉👍
They really did give a great intro for context, didn't they? I don't agree with their conclusions, but I appreciate their lead in and honesty so much that they got me to subscribe to the channel.
Who cares ? The ramifications of China's naval build up can't truly be known for another ten or fifteen years, it takes a long time period for these kinds of changes to have full effect. So many different events can alter that outcome as to be incalculable, so trying to guess is just that, a wild ass guess.