‘News Snapshots’ is the new fortnightly news podcast from The OSINT Bunker team.

The panel discuss the latest developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, ongoing tensions in the South China Sea involving China, Taiwan and US forces & China’s new aircraft carrier Fujian.

The panel features @DefenceGeek & @osinttechnical.

The OSINT Bunker Podcast team, renowned for their in-depth analysis of international affairs, has launched a new series, the ‘News Snapshots’ podcast.

This latest endeavour offers listeners a concise yet thorough overview of current global events, coupled with expert commentary and insights.

The podcast also delves into regional conflicts and shifting geopolitical dynamics, underscoring the OSINT Bunker team’s commitment to offering a holistic view of global events. ‘News Snapshots Podcast’ promises to be an invaluable resource for those seeking a quick yet comprehensive update on world affairs.

This new series is sponsored by the UK Defence Journal.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

152 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_817754)
6 days ago

Look. No aircraft!
Just a big target.
White elephant.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

BobA
BobA (@guest_817758)
6 days ago

Should be nuclear powered …

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_817811)
6 days ago
Reply to  BobA

Good one I missed.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_817766)
6 days ago

Bad man😱

frank
frank (@guest_817807)
6 days ago

But they at least have the aircraft.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_817810)
6 days ago
Reply to  frank

Can’t see any there?
We have aircraft too? 35 or so at the mo.
Apparently, they must be lined up on deck at all times, even in the SCXAs, otherwise we’re crap.
Not good enough China, you’ve an empty flight deck there.

Rowan Maguire
Rowan Maguire (@guest_817814)
6 days ago

Currently, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy Air-force (or what ever it’s called) has just 110 fighter aircraft in active service ( roughly two squadrons of which are training variants) to go around 3 carriers – plus the J-15 has only ever made 1 known catapult launch in its service life. In theory they are incapable of filling all their carriers in the same way were currently are, but you’ll never hear anyone raise that point.

frank
frank (@guest_817822)
6 days ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

“just 110 fighters” …. well that’s about the entire RAF inventory of Typhoons and F35, give or take a a dozen or so. In total the PLAN/AF have some 2500 combat aircraft. You can bet your life on it that China will equip these ships with sufficient aircraft sometime soon.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818274)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

I wouldn’t back on them doing that with the Fujian which is of course their only true Blue water carrier, the others have limited operational range and flexibility and can only really operate effectively in home waters which is the whole reason the Fujian was desperately required. I’m sure they will eventually get it sorted but the Chinese lack of carrier operations is another serious handicap that will take time to resolve. It’s no easy task.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817954)
5 days ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

Don’t forget that the PLAN-AF has a considerable fleet of Land based ( only ) Fighter/Bomber/Recce Jets too .

Tzar
Tzar (@guest_818092)
5 days ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

In practice they can produce more than 100 J 15 each year 😜

Loh
Loh (@guest_818096)
5 days ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

J 20yearly made 150 to 200.u think they can’t achieve US in future? Lol…

frank
frank (@guest_817817)
6 days ago

You know what I meant. China has enough fixed wing aircraft to fully load it’s three carriers whereas UK has so far managed 8 in 7 years. Now I like a bit of sarcasm but I also see the reality of the facts and the facts are, we have two large Aircraft Carriers and no where near the amount of aircraft they were each designed to carry. There is no excuse for this.

Ian
Ian (@guest_817846)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

They are designed around achieving a particular sortie generation rate, because that is what defines the actual capability of a carrier. If you have more aircraft on board than you need to achieve your optimum rate then they are just ballast.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_817851)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Absolutely right it’s a sad fact 😞

frank
frank (@guest_817963)
5 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yet just look at the deluded replies here….. So far after 7 whole years of the Carriers being in service just 8 F35’s have been embarked….. yet the Regulars here seem to think this is an excellent achievement.. WW2 was over in 5……. I used to love reading all the replies on here but lately, it’s become more of an Arm Chair Ego place and that’s on top of the Racist content so beloved by a few Stalwarts…..

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818275)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Most of the problem is in the F-35 programme itself, though now that technically acceptable level future proofed airframes are available this year that excuse will not be sustainable much longer. Hope that’s not too racist against the Americans.

James
James (@guest_817864)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Going back to the original idea of having 1 carrier available at all times we have no reason to have 2 flight decks full of aircraft, it was never in the original requirement. Sadly the F35 buy rate has sensibly been slowed due to the US shafting us on block 4 integration which is what it is. Better to wait and buy them capable from the factory as opposed to buying then sending back at greater expense to make them block 4 capable.

Yes its not ideal but its better than doing it the other way around.

frank
frank (@guest_817882)
5 days ago
Reply to  James

But was it actually the Idea or is it just an excuse ???… I think you have to look back at the history of the programme with all the many changes made along the way and if you look back to 1982 you will see that we put to sea two carriers with full loads because we could…. but we certainly can’t now, not even close for one…. and that’s the issue.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_817950)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

There is a big difference between normal peacetime operations and what can be achieved in a national crisis. Like the Falklands. It wasn’t the norm to put every single Sea Harrier and helicopter we posses to sea. But for a crisis we could. And it would be the same today. We could deploy 30+ F35’s tomorrow if we really really needed too. But we don’t. So the normal work up structure remains. But we will operate far more F35’s then we ever had of Sea Harriers. And the capability is the best money can buy. 🇬🇧

Last edited 5 days ago by Robert Blay
frank
frank (@guest_817955)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Robert, That’s so wrong …. We could not deploy 30+ at all….. Not even in your wildest dreams and certainly not for both….. i often wonder if you even have a clue what you are on about on here to be honest.

frank
frank (@guest_817964)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Sorry again Robert but you are totally wrong about Sea Harrier numbers in fact you are so wrong, I’m embarrassed for you…. Go take a simple look at Google, let us know how you get on…..

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_817986)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Come on captain. Don’t be a plonker all your life.

frank
frank (@guest_817996)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Says you…… come on Robert Blay, go take a look at google….. you will see plainly that some 98 Sea Harriers were built…. that figure eclipses the amount of F35’s we have or will probably ever have that you so plainly stated on here……… who’s the plonker again ? Mate, if you don’t actually understand defence related stuff, may I suggest you find another site ? Seriously Bob, try a Knitting site yes ….

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818003)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Captain. 98?? Seems way too high for me. How many of those 98 Sea Harriers were FS1 and then FA2s? By 1978, looking at Google, 34 FRS1 had been ordered. 22 newer build FA2 were added later. They were not all in service at once, the FS1s were updated to FA2 standard much later post 1990. We had 800,801,809 NAS and latterly, for most of the Sea Harriers time in the FA, 800,801 NAS in front line service. Mate, Robert Blay served in those Sea Harrier Sqns, so I tend to go with his own experience than Google mate. I… Read more »

frank
frank (@guest_818008)
5 days ago

I answered Roberts statement…. 98 is the number built…. You are just trying to belittle me now…. It’s OK though, I fully understand why.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818010)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

What???? 🙄 mate, not at all. Chill!

frank
frank (@guest_818013)
5 days ago

Nope…. I see what is written on here and to be honest, I’m not in the frame of mind to Chill at all……. You have no Idea what frame of mind I’m in nor why I am in it…… Fed up with reading and dealing with Idiots to be honest…..

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818015)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

98 were built, and that, presumably, will include those for the Indian Navy.
The subject is RN capability and you and Robert were referencing RN capability.
I’ve questioned that 98 as being all FAA, and that’s belittling you is it?
No mate, just questioning the accuracy of the initial statement.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818279)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

He’s simply stating facts and fact is we did not have anything like that number available at any given time, certainly not in the Falklands Campaign by the information I have found. If you have strong evidence to the contrary then fine let’s see it, always happy to add to my knowledge.

Mark
Mark (@guest_818281)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Belittling you? Let’s just review your previous posts to Robert Blay….. 1. “Robert, That’s so wrong …. We could not deploy 30+ at all….. Not even in your wildest dreams and certainly not for both….. i often wonder if you even have a clue what you are on about on here to be honest.” 2. “Sorry again Robert but you are totally wrong about Sea Harrier numbers in fact you are so wrong, I’m embarrassed for you…. Go take a simple look at Google, let us know how you get on…..” 3. “Mate, if you don’t actually understand defence related… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Mark
klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818075)
5 days ago

correct Daniele, A quick glance to a reference books (and wikipedia) indicate 58 were built for the RN. Guess the balance went to India?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818077)
5 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Yes mate.
Some of those were the much newerFA2 with AMRAAM and, was it Foxhunter radar? The nose cone was bigger.
Front line Sqns had just 8 I believe.
The issue, as I was saying above, is that the Bs also need to cover the interdiction/Strike role for the RAF.
So we need more than the paltry 48.
We have covered the Sea Harrier capability, it’s the rest that has been lost that the F35s are meant to fill too.

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818116)
5 days ago

Hi DM, I think some of the original FRS 1were also upgraded to the FA 2 standard.

GlynH
GlynH (@guest_818323)
4 days ago

FoxHunter was the Tornado F.3. Blue Vixen was the Sea Harrier FA2. Damn good radar, purported to outperform the APG/65 and rival the APG/73

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818526)
3 days ago
Reply to  GlynH

Ah! Wrong one. Thanks for the correction.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818277)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Some 28 Sea Harriers were active in the Falklands, unless you have evidence to contradict this.

James
James (@guest_818039)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Didnt we have 3 carriers back in 1982? Not that we can really compare 40 years ago equipment to now.

However if we do compare and send 1 wilfully equipped carrier with say 10 F35’s with a helicopter wing comprising various assets along with 3 T45’s and a 4 T23’s plus say 2 Astutes what would the impact be against everything Argentina has? Id say now would be the better outcome to 1982.

Dern
Dern (@guest_818144)
4 days ago
Reply to  James

We had three carriers back then yes, but the routine compliment of them was about 8 Harriers (if you really packed them in you could manage about 15 but then you’d start loosing your rotary airwing fast).

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818276)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Well we didn’t actually have enough Sea Harriers did we. Numbers were sorely limited in fact.

Sausage
Sausage (@guest_817969)
5 days ago
Reply to  James

Of course you need more than one air group. They rotate through work up, deployment, and rest cycles too. The US has one CAG per active carrier; that being a carrier not in long refit. You can’t tie one carrier wing to two CBG’s.

Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_818012)
5 days ago
Reply to  James

But its having the crew for the air wing, enough so that pilots snd deck crew can be rotated. No point in having two carriers if there are only personnel for one. The FAA tried to run two carriers with one crew loading in the lste 60s 70s and pilots simply voted to constant duty rotstion with their feet. You need sufficient for rotation and as replacements.

James
James (@guest_818037)
5 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

Hence the original idea of having 1 carrier available at all times, not disagreeing we dont have the sustained personnel for 2 to be in full use but that was the entire point.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_817886)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

And you know what I meant.

frank
frank (@guest_817956)
5 days ago

Yup, I saw exactly what you meant.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818004)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Lol yes, so many say our carriers are a waste so there you go. It works both ways.

frank
frank (@guest_818009)
5 days ago

No not really …. you are trying to justify our lack of capability whilst trying to put me and others down….. well mate, I’m not having it….. You are the Site God but on this, you are totally wrong….. always have been. Sorry to burst your Train Driving Bubble.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818011)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

I was sarcastically highlighting the oft repeated criticisms of an empty flight deck and reversing it seeing China rob the same.
I’m not putting any one down, I’m offering a different pov which you don’t seem able to cope with.
I’m not a site God.
I don’t drive trains, so no bubbles burst.
Sorry to see you posting like this against me mate as,we go back a long way and have had lots of laughs.
But go ahead, up to you.

frank
frank (@guest_818014)
5 days ago

I’m out now……. might come back in a few weeks…. might not…. too many stupid comments here now……

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818064)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

👋 See you soon Captain PW.

DB
DB (@guest_818098)
5 days ago

Daniele, as much as I loathe the lack of up-to-date F35Bs, which is, (God in Heaven keep your lightening strike) NOT the fault of this cr@p Govt, over on Navy Lookout the RFA Outlook is dire.

Without the RFA, the carriers might as well stay tied up alongside.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818142)
4 days ago
Reply to  DB

Morning David.
I know….RFA in bits, MCMV going before the replacements, frigates in a mess. All that is indeed the fault of this government.

Cj
Cj (@guest_818251)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Hi Frank, I tend to agree with you about the carriers but it’s bloody LM that’s screwin everyone over that did that, personally I’d love to see us buying 48 typhoon 24 land 24 carriers I know that would cost a fortune but maybe it’s time to really start spending, think it would be pretty cool havin f35 and typhoon on the carrier with drones.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818280)
4 days ago
Reply to  Cj

Indeed I have actually forgotten just how far behind schedule this programme is. Even the US F-35s are able to support a surprisingly small range of weapons, shocked me when I saw the rather short list. Some there are as concerned as we. Potential only goes so far.

Loh
Loh (@guest_818097)
5 days ago

The points you mentioned is like kidengarden kids.no carrier goes to war without a test period.this carrier just finished 10days ago without having final test for others features.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819047)
2 days ago
Reply to  Loh

Read elsewhere to understand why I said what I did, or learn about “sarcasm”

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818273)
4 days ago

The problem is if they did land on it, assuming the arrestor gear is actually working, they won’t be able to take off again because the EMALS system certainly as yet isn’t. So a crane it is then.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818272)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Well from what I have read (though I won’t confirm its veracity) there are grave doubts about the reliability of its EMALS system with certain analyses claiming from the observations of test vehicles launched that they are not yet operating within parameters required to launch actual aircraft safely. Certainly there does seem to be evidence that they are still having real problems its argued by using a layout in its coils that looks good on paper but was rejected by the US as not being reliable enough or failsafe in full scale tests of their own when devising their own… Read more »

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818070)
5 days ago

ha ha brilliant – made my day Mate! 😆

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_818074)
5 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Chris. Family all safe in Godalming?
Remember, any dramas, we are local.

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818117)
5 days ago

Cheers DM, not yet departed, thy leave about 10 June.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_817762)
6 days ago

It’s going to be interesting to see if their EMALS works. The USN had a lot of trouble developing and integrating the system.
Just because China can build a large carrier doesn’t mean the carrier is any good.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_817796)
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

🤞

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818283)
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

See my comments above, from what I have read there are very serious questions about the operational capability of that carrier’s EMALS and its ability to sustain the power safely to ensure safe launch of an aircraft. However one does have to be careful taking as read US assessments of problems with the Chinese system. Either way the next 3 to 6 months should certainly give a strong indication as to the veracity of these claims of inherent problems.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817772)
6 days ago

China is obviously going for an evolutionary approach to building Aircraft Carriers, taking small steps at a time, learning what works and what doesn’t, can’t fault them for that.

edwinr
edwinr (@guest_817782)
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

It’s too easy to ridicule the Chinese and their efforts in building their navy. I remember only a few short decades ago, we used to snigger at anything ‘made in Japan’. Our arrogance will be our downfall.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_817784)
6 days ago
Reply to  edwinr

Indeed, we derided the Japanese before WW2 but got clobbered by them. Look at the Long Lance torpedo that greatly outranged our own & carried a bigger charge or the Zero fighter that whipped all allied planes until later in the war. One thing we know about the Chinese is they’re very innovative in war.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_817798)
6 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

😱

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818284)
4 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

I’m not one to underestimate the Japanese at all we did in a racist manner deride them back then, but early war things were very much in their favour and the Americans naval aircraft were terrible (like our own). The Zero was good but also like Rommel for example greatly overrated too. Once the Hellcat arrived in 43 it far out performed the Zero, indeed even the relative kill ratio of the very average Wildcat was a little better than 1 to 2 against the Zero despite the Japanese greater experience early Pacific Campaign.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_817799)
6 days ago
Reply to  edwinr

Absolutely agree that could occur.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_817797)
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Exactly, eventually the ChiComs will produce a successful carrier. More’s the pity. Then they will produce multiple copies on an expedited schedule. Then the PLAN will be visiting ports near everyone. 🤔😳😱

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_817867)
5 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

They’ve built ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Djibouti already, and run Piraeus for Greece.

frank
frank (@guest_817883)
5 days ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

African West Coast next.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_817960)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Peru, Venezuela looks likely.

frank
frank (@guest_817973)
5 days ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

Yes, I think It’s just a matter of time now…… Yet the West and a few on here seem to be living in blissful ignorance…. If the Chinese are spending so much money building so much stuff just to take Taiwan and a few local Island groups then I’m a Irishman……

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_818041)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

They make no secret of it, they want full control of the indo Pacific , Taiwan is just the first of the three island chains.

geoff
geoff (@guest_818324)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Shouldn’t that be AN Irishman Frank?😉

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818297)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

keep an eye on South Africa too Frank. In particular Simonstown Naval base at Cape Town.

geoff
geoff (@guest_818325)
4 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Morning Klonkie! Simonstown indeed! We’ve done a hundred and eighty degree turn in terms of alignment here-cosying up to the BRICS partners!

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818698)
3 days ago
Reply to  geoff

hey Geoff, hope all is good in Durbs! Best of luck with the upcoming general election – be good to see some positive change (hopefully).

geoff
geoff (@guest_818741)
3 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Hey Klonkie. All good here, sunny and 27 degrees at lunchtime whilst the UK Daily Mail is complaining about ‘scorching ‘temperatures at 23 degrees! Not many places to beat a Durban Winter!
The Chinese carrier is a good looking piece of naval hardware!!

Tams
Tams (@guest_818336)
4 days ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

Honestly, if they invade Taiwan, then all ports supplying the PLN need to be obliterated as a matter of national security and regardless of what the country they are in thinks.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817776)
6 days ago

And just for a bit of reference she is equipped with 4 x PDMS Launchers (SEARAM a-like) and 4 x CIWS (Goalkeeper a-like) for self defence.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_817785)
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Plus a massive escort force.

frank
frank (@guest_817823)
6 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Hello Frank…. exactly… at present they are building at an astonishing rate and they are developing some pretty impressive Aircraft too (on paper at least) It’s all too easy to dismiss them like some on here seem to do.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817812)
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Noted. The new French carrier will also have 4*40mm and SAM, probably Aster. Here’s hoping that the QE carriers will get some upgrade in their own defensive capabilities at least.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_817852)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Second that 👍

Norm Browne
Norm Browne (@guest_817801)
6 days ago

Apparently some nuclear powered versions are also in the works. Let’s not belittle or be complacent.

Tony Rosier
Tony Rosier (@guest_817828)
6 days ago

Even when we have been short of cash in the past we have always prioritised our Navy ! We have fallen so far behind now that it’s becoming a purely local navy instead of Bluewater. You may say look at the carriers but they are truly not good enough and at least one too few and also don’t have enough air defense and logistical back up as well as not having enough aircraft. In the past if we had seen a potential adversary building new ships at the rate that China is doing we would immediately started to build up… Read more »

Paul
Paul (@guest_817830)
6 days ago

Its a rusty piece of crap. Its been dogged with development issues (esp. the electromagnetic catapult which uses inferior tech to the US), has had deck cracking, and has limited power for the launch system.

Its bigger problem is that Chinese high performance engines are far less powerful and reliable than western (or Russian) counterparts- meaning the Chinese copies of Russian aircraft are underpowered and can’t carry as much.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817834)
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul

I’d be careful about going that far but I would agree on the Chinese jet engines and the probable power output of their version of EMALS.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a ski jump was added……

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817865)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Where are your sources for these claims.?.

Paul
Paul (@guest_817879)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Look on Youtube and see the multitude of videos on the subject. China Observer for example breaks down what this is- an updated Kuznetzov that looks more impressive than it actually is.

frank
frank (@guest_817958)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul

No it’s not….. Jeeese fella It’s nothing like the Kuznetzov…. Have you even read the article ?

Paul
Paul (@guest_817979)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

001 was the Riga/ Varyag (refitted and called Liáoníng), 002 was the Shandong (a local copy) and 003 is an evolution of 002- hence ‘updated’- it still uses propulsion and other aspects of 001 and 002 because the Chinese are reluctant (or lack the experience) to use a nuclear reactor.

frank
frank (@guest_817997)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul

So why are you trying to compare the 01 with this 03 ? You stated that Chinese Media breaks it down as an updated Kuznetzov…… that’s your words….. …… I think you haven’t a clue about what this latest Carrier actually is….. Why are there so many clueless posters on here lately ?

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_818046)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Ive watched a few videos,they don’t reveal much beyond the obvious,if your happy that the Fujian is a Kuznetsov rip off then great,you will be the only one thinking so.When 004 is Launched would you think that is another Kuznetsov clone too ?.

Jon
Jon (@guest_818112)
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Have you seen what they are doing even with Liaoning and Shandong? I think it was from the Shandong that the Japanese reported a very impressive sortie rate during Pacific exercises. 63 sorties a day from the “Kuznetsov copy”. Even if that’s exaggerated by helicopter sorties, it may still be more than any non-US carrier has achieved, including QE and CdG.

Do you really think the larger and far more capable looking Fujian will be magically worse? As their aircraft become more capable through iteration, Fujian will be a real force in the region.

John
John (@guest_817854)
5 days ago

Accept it is experimental. Facts are the Chicoms cannot provide a true escort force as their much vaunted “navy” lacks any real range. If this thing got involved in conflict? Like all under defended carriers it is a sitting duck.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_817870)
5 days ago
Reply to  John

Do they need real range if they’re goal is progressing their territorial claims?

John
John (@guest_817878)
5 days ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

If they want “Blue Water” capability l would say yes. The Indians are interestingly looking at containment of the Chinese. Also the US Marine rerolling is another strand. Aukus ( if it happens ) points to containment too. Reading several sources suggest that too. The Chicom dependence on import of food, raw materials? All point for a need for them to expand naval range. I think the crux really is how long Xi can maintain control, the corruption levels are as bad as anywhere else. Ok, he has cleared house but some observers point to the fact he does not… Read more »

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_817961)
5 days ago
Reply to  John

China has a major demographics problem that’s starting to kick in too

John
John (@guest_817962)
5 days ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

True. One child policy. Also all citizen wealth is in property. We know the story of the ghost cities.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_818042)
5 days ago
Reply to  John

Citizens abroad are buying gold as is the government, these us banking sanctions are starting to affect russian trades, gold is the answer

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_817966)
5 days ago
Reply to  John

I’m afraid that is profoundly out of date…they have a very large blue water navy with more tonnage of support vessels than the RN. Blue water combatant wise, they have 8 13,000ton surface action group leaders ( large very modern cruisers) 29ish 7500 ton escorts ( all very new) 17 other 6000-7000 ton destroyers 32 4200 ton ASW frigates ( all modern) fleet replenishment wise the have 2 modern 48,000 ton fast replenishment vessels 10 25,000 to fleet replenishment vessels 4 15,000 stores ships. 1 37,000 ton replenishment vessel so that’s around 86 large blue water escorts and around 450,000… Read more »

frank
frank (@guest_817975)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Thank God…. at last someone actually knows what the Chinese are doing….. I thought I was alone here for a while….. seems like most of the regulars have no Idea whatsoever….. I’d hate to think just how large their Navy will be in 10 years…..

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_817985)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Yes it’s bizarre…this is the navy that has more surface escorts hanging around the western Indian Ocean than any other navy ( around 6)…has a East African navel base that can home a supper carrier and battle group, is building a base in the gulf, a base that effectively sits on the eastern Indian Ocean..western pacific choke point…what most people don’t get is china could very easily send a large surface action group to freedom or navigate through the med…through the channel and North Sea….but they do not….and the question is why…because China is a huge blue water navy that… Read more »

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818079)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Good commentary Jonathan, I can but only concur. However do take a look a my above comment to Frank. Analysis needs to be balanced against the combined capabilities of an allied combined fleet. I cant see that boding well for China.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818124)
5 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Hi klonkie, I think you are right..at present on balance a United west would win..but I have a couple of caveats. 1) china has changed its position around allies and has started to actively court them..the anti western coalition ( china, North Korea, Iran/Syria and proxies, Russia and allies) is still not in the same place as the west and the west can still put more power down in any one place…but the anti western faction are gaining cohesion of action….Russia is burning through munitions suppled by, china, North Korea and iran…..It’s more and more likely that if the west… Read more »

Last edited 5 days ago by Jonathan
klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818294)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Really good commentary Jonathan, I enjoyed reading your analysis, seems a good appraisal of the Chinese geo political long game.

geoff
geoff (@guest_818326)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

As always interesting comment Jonathan. The huge elephant in the room is of course the Nuclear possibility. It is the one scenario we are all afraid to contemplate but in the event of any serious conventional conflict then it takes just one Nuke to set off Armageddon. I do not believe that a major fight between any of the big powers could be contained to avoid the use of these weapons, particularly withe the mad rhetoric coming out of Russia and North Korea currently. It is as though there is a steady rise to insanity where machismo from dwarf dictators… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by geoff
Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818341)
4 days ago
Reply to  geoff

Hi Geoff, indeed it is a huge risk as china now has a MAD level nuclear deterrent to deal with. But I think it potentially a more contained risk with china than with say what we had with the USSR ( any war would have lead to a nuclear exchange) and still at present with Russia…but I think in a few years Russia will be very much dependent on china and china should be a bit of a mitigation. So why the reduced risk with china: 1) china has a very strict no first use policy and is very very… Read more »

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818076)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

Hi Frank, Interesting to note that in this thread ,we missed one essential truth. With the exception of Nort Korea, China has no natural allies. Balance that against the Western + Eastern allies : USA, Japan South Korea, Singapore, Australia, India (the list goes on and I haven’t included the other NATO members). Fly in the ointment is Russia off course- what would thy do? A cursory glance at the naval +air balance and it’s self evident China cannot prevail. It’ s a personal view, but I forsee the AUKUS gig morphing into into a mirror of NATO if China… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_818123)
5 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

The USN is currently more than a match, but the rest of the alliance put together isn’t, and without US involvement the Chinese would ride roughshod over the region. We are reliant on the US not going through one of its insular phases.

Russia and Iran are allies of a kind, because they are the enemy of China’s enemy.

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_818295)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jon

cheers Jon

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_818176)
4 days ago
Reply to  frank

Hi frank, I have been saying for sometime that the current situation has some similarities with the 1930’s. On the one hand we have NATO and aligned democracies. On the other side we have a group of aggressive nations looking to up end the current international norms. The other point to remember is that WW2 started as a series of regional wars such as the Sino / Japanese war that started in 1937, the European war that in started in 1939 and were separate conflicts that eventually got rolled into one terrible conflagration. We currently have two major regional wars… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_817987)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

But they haven’t demonstrated the ability to use any of that though. We don’t see Chinese task groups on the other side of the world on months long deployments. Or taking part in multi national exercises. Its like the RN never leaving the English Channel and the North Sea. Its all well and good saying you have these vessels and x amount of tonnage. But until you demonstrated the ability to deploy, at range, very far from home. Then it doesn’t really mean a lot.

frank
frank (@guest_818000)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Ermmm you do know that the PLAN sailed through the English Channel a fair few years ago Bob ? …… have you even taken the time to google what they have ? …… mate, I used to respect some of your stuff on here but lately…. I only see deluded and mis guided stuff….

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_818033)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

I think our Armed Forces/intelligence services know exactly what they have, and where it is at any given point in time. And what threat they pose.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818057)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hi Robert they have had a sustained presence from the western pacific to the gulf of Aden… china has since 2008 sent 46 task forces up to the gulf of Aden and Persian gulf..these have included amphibious task groups and groups including submarine forces..the PLAN send an average of 3.6 task forces a year though the western pacific…across the Indian occean and into the gulf of Aden…these are generally all three ship task groups escorts + whatever else they practice deploying…either amphibious vessels or submarines and tenders…most of the year the PLAN with have six major warships in the gulf… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_818152)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

They have a large navy and it’s getting larger every week. Definitely blue water.

Jon
Jon (@guest_818118)
5 days ago
Reply to  John

During Pacific exercises in the winter, Shandong’s entourage included five destroyers, three frigates, and a large replenishment ship. I don’t know about the subs, but it doesn’t sound too shabby to me.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_817905)
5 days ago

The fact china is building these shows where their view is on any future conflict…a very large carrier is not really needed in the direct Taiwan theatre, but in the context of the wider geostrategic picture..one of these would drag at least one active US carrier away from any Taiwan theatre….another key question is can china get more in commission by the 2030 timeframe….from the point of view of purely building the things yes they can…but crewing and commissioning are a difference thing…although they do have two smaller carriers they could decommission and use the crews from….if they can have… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_818126)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A few years ago you could dismiss Liaoning as a training ship. I’d say Liaoning and Shandong are currently more than a match for Vikramaditya and Vikrant. Indian Rafales should change that, although perhaps not. Chinese air power is improving rapidly. While I’d expect engine upgrades to the J-15s, if they use a version of the FC-31 on the two ramped carriers instead (and why not) they might still overmatch the Indian carriers.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_817947)
5 days ago

The Americans have decades of experience with big carriers and large air groups. And it takes blood, sweat, and tears to perfect carrier aviation. It does not happen overnight. Making a carrier into a floating airfield able to sustain air operations for months at a time is as demanding as it gets. The complexity is mind-boggling to bring every element of a warship together to result in an aircraft taking off from the deck, completing a complex sortie, and returning safely. The Chinese have a very long way to go.

frank
frank (@guest_817959)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

That’s exactly the sort of Ignorance that the Americans and British displayed in WW2 about Japan….

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_817990)
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The thing is Robert the PLAN have been quietly practicing carrier aviation since 2012…that’s 12 years of blood sweat and tears…2023 was a big year for Chinese carrier aviation..it spent most of the year with a carrier battle group deployed across the western pacific…undertaking flying opps next to each major hub or US navel power in the western pacific…I don’t think it will be very long (2025-26 may be) before it sends a CBG into the western Indian Ocean and sits in the gulf of Aden…..it’s got the basing capacity to now forward base a carrier battle group in that… Read more »

frank
frank (@guest_818001)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yup…. they are certainly on a mission…… only the deluded arm chair Admirals will dismiss it……. Just like we are seeing on here lately…….

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_818032)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

If you are poking for a reaction. You aren’t going to get it.

DB
DB (@guest_818235)
4 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Not sure Robert. We dismissed the Japanese before WW2 and all services paid for it.

Did we even consider China in 1950, and got a right kicking.

Prudence might suggest planning for an overwhelming confrontation with China. Just saying.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_818248)
4 days ago
Reply to  DB

Just saying. This isnt the 1940s. We live in a connected world.A global economy. You can not compare the events of the past to today.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818312)
4 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Well I think it’s important to compare the events of the past to the present day if only to determine what similarities or differences any given event or scenario may represent. Re inventing the wheel for your important decision making is dangerous in and of itself. China and Russia indeed are obsessed with the past in making their present decisions. But admittedly one has to be very aware of the differences too.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_818043)
5 days ago
Reply to  frank

The mission is the belt and road initiative, its changing the trade paradigm across the planet. And its hardly mentioned in the media 🙄

Expat
Expat (@guest_818206)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

China’s going to want to start to playing in the Atlantic. If there’s war in the Pacific then where’s the US going to lean on for supply lines? They’re close to having a new base in west Aftrica, whon’t be too long before we’re shadowing PLAN ship through the channel and North Sea.

DB
DB (@guest_818234)
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

They were in the Baltics a few years back, regular attendance at Russian fleet review at St Petersburg.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818238)
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

I think your right, but they still seem to be playing low key in what are perceived to be the wests oceans..so the Atlantic and eastern pacific….they have put a hell of a lot of effort into the Indian Ocean..especially the key pacific to Indian Ocean choke points and Indian Ocean to med choke points…..with the navy they have they could easily have permanent west African flotilla…but historically they have not been focused on defence packs or freedom of the seas guarantees like the west and have gone very much only gone where they see a direct security interest (… Read more »

Expat
Expat (@guest_818332)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

You’ll recall they were pushing for a base in Argentina for sometime. Of course China is relying on influence it buys so its perhaps been easier in the areas you mentioned. Also for China after the west it sees India as a major competitor so Indian ocean expansion serves 2 purposes so perhaps why its been a priority.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818347)
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

To be honest I think the friction between India and china may be the big balancer… in a multi polar world one of the big pieces on the board is india…an India fully aligned with the western democracies puts a massive spanner in the works for china…a neutral or Russia leaning India would be bad for the west in regards to the Indian ocean…which would be one of the big keys to victory in any major western vs china/Russia/Iran war.

Last edited 4 days ago by Jonathan
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818309)
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

They will probably build a plastic island and use it to claim the Channel soon I reckon.

Cj
Cj (@guest_818049)
5 days ago

Hi folks, the thing that worries me about china is at some point they are going start making tech they have stolen better because they’re pumping money in to military and space at a scary rate.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_818129)
4 days ago

If it’s like every other piece of Chinese made stuff I’ve bought, it will fail a few days after the warranty expires.
China may be able to churn out large numbers of naval vessels but as their expanded fleet ages, they will hit the same maintenance problems that beset Western navies. The one in three rule will apply to them as well.
Meanwhile, the way to counter a numerically superior surface navy is to increase submarine capability. Aukus is exactly the right way to go.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818168)
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Isn’t all this increasing Chinese fleet showing an urgency for a greater anti-ship ability for the F35B’s? Are the TR3/Block 4 delays still holding all of this/Spear program up? And any ASM’s yet for the P-8s and Typhoons? Are the Astute’s going to have anti ship ability besides torpedoes, with their Tomahawks v5? And any further news on the Venom for the Wildcats?

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_818196)
4 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Rhetorical questions? Sea Venom is late, FOC now 2026; F35 tech refresh 3 is also delayed so years before Sea Spear and Meteor integrated. No plans I’m aware of to fit heavy ASMs to any UK aircraft. Astutes will keep Tomahawk in the land attack role but probably not an anti ship version.
All rather unsatisfactory.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818207)
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Hi Peter, lol, just asking. I actually got a bit exhausted reading all the posts and banter above. All good reading. At least with a greater adoption of MK41s in the fleet there’ll be options for a variety of weapons and maybe some more sets of NSM would be prudent while we’re waiting and maybe LRASM for the P-8s.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan (@guest_818209)
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Or as the US is planning to do – Use both submarines and its long-range bombers with stand-off weapons outside the range of Chinese missiles to annihilate the Chinese fleets.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818241)
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Yes an no…it’s depends…the problem is the likely first theatre and that will be the china seas around Taiwan…this is not a great area to send big SSNs..especially if they are going to be duelling with electric boats…it’s not an exchange the west would want to engage in…. The problem really is not so much taking on China globally…as I’m sure the west would win that…the problem will be that the first major navel campaign will be in the china seas….and the rule of three applies when your deploying away from home…Less so when you are at home…also The PLAN… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818303)
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In any conflict with China the US would not operate any major vessels anything other than east of Taiwan, anything else would be suicide. It would try to support Taiwan (assuming it intervened) from there or on the island itself. Sounds rather like the Philippines in WW2 to me but it would try to take out any landing force at distance so that they could never gain a serious foothold on the island itself. Can it work, only if the untested Chinese proved very poor I fear, but the only time they have been tested while on Middle Eastern peace… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818307)
4 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Got to say the Hisense microwave I bought as a test of potential Chinese new found excellence is a relative pile of junk (shocked at its poor design, lack of ease of use and build quality), so yeah when Western designers aren’t involved quality seems to be iffy and varied at best. That said they have shown they can produce high quality gear when the design is right and they are improving on the design side just as the Japanese did decades back, so I will keep an open mind for now and especially as time passes.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_818345)
4 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

All very good points…one would hope the U.S. did not suffer from massive hubris and react into the china seas…or get dragged and drag the west into an attritional war we would not be suited to winning anymore.

Frank
Frank (@guest_818246)
4 days ago

Hark at the voluble armchair pundits

Nick Paton
Nick Paton (@guest_818266)
4 days ago

Good Evening,

Perhaps the Royal Navy could buy a couple of Fuhian carriers as well as a 10 class 055 destroyers and 15 class 054 frigates. Of course shipped over and fitted for condition so we can mount our systems accordingly! Our fleet would be rapidly increased in a short time instead of waiting for our politicians to decide or not?

Hopeful wishes Nick

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_818299)
4 days ago
Reply to  Nick Paton

So buy a carrier that presently doesn’t work due to technical issues, how very British.