Chinese state media has revealed the Fujian, the country’s latest aircraft carrier.
The Fujian, with a displacement estimated to be perhaps as high as 100,000 tonnes, is a domestically-engineered design.
A key feature of the carrier is its electromagnetic catapult system, which distinguishes it from earlier Chinese carriers that employed ski-jump launch mechanisms. This system, similar to the one used in the US Navy’s Gerald R Ford-class carriers, enables the launch of a broader range of aircraft.
In terms of size, the Fujian compares to the Soviet-era 85,000-ton Ulyanovsk and the 100,000-ton US supercarriers. Its dimensions are reported to be about 316 metres in length and 76 metres in width. Initially, assessments suggested a displacement of 80,000 to 85,000 tons, but later evaluations, supported by satellite imagery, indicate that it might be closer to 100,000 tons.
The carrier is expected to operate the Shenyang J-15B variant. This aircraft is equipped with contemporary avionics, AESA radar, stealth coatings, and new engines.
The Fujian began power and mooring trials in April 2023 and was anticipated to enter sea trials by late 2023 or early 2024.
Its interesting how we have allowed Chinese engineers and science grads to attend our universities for nearly 3 decades essentially transferring our technological edge. Couple that with rampant cyber theft of IP from Western companies this is the result.
Absolutely agree w/ your assessment! 👍😳😱☹️
Real clever of the west…essentially potentially caused our own downfall, all in the name of short term money and cheaper consumable goods.
I think China was seen as more friendly before Winnie the Pooh took power. The massive size of chinese own education system has also played a massive part. It benefited the world for China to change from a countryside economy to what it became. As China has become wealthier it has done what all countries do and modernised its military. Boys love there toys as they say. Hopefully it will just be used for defence. Taiwan is an issue and has been since 1950s. There are quite a few large population countries that if they see the economic growth like… Read more »
Hi monkey unfortunately those other nations don’t undertake a long drawn out expensive plan to harden their economies against war..undertake an ongoing sub war campaign against their enemies , actually tell their entire population to prepare for war and essentially practice mobilisation of its entire population every couple of years…no other nation has spent, wasted or lost many hundreds of billions…in doing this…not since well the third Reich and not even Hitler was so blatant..china has told its population and the west it’s going to invade Taiwan and if the U.S. even makes a pep that it would prevent this… Read more »
China has been doing a bit of economic work to not be so vulnerable to a conflict. It appears dictator leadership does have a few advantages with long term planning etc. I wouldn’t want to live under one. I really hope we can remain peaceful. For Taiwan really they must prepare to make an invasion really difficult. The time it would take to get help into the area will be long. I don’t think a lot of countries want to risk going to war over Taiwan. It’s a tricky situation and being an island would be difficult to get past… Read more »
I wish I shared your confidence, but their search for blue sea ports all over the World and sudden claim to be a near Arctic Country with rights there not to mention the historical evidence for nearly all dominant trading nations wishing to protect their wide spread trade routes developing Imperial dreams (esp when you have a 3000 year history of Imperialism) all tends to make me feel their claims to a New World Order are very real and in their image.
They have an Imperial mentality; nobody can deny that. Some people are asleep that’s all and just like 2014 back then with Russia and taking Crimea from Ukraine.
In the UK case we became pretty poor at manufacturing, we couldn’t churn out anything of quality so offshoring was inevitable not just to China but Eastern Europe and even Germany where they enjoyed 30% more productivity and higher quality which was case for one company I worked for.
But yes the West in general has been too.kean to capture market share and vague hope that China will transform. Bill Clinton has a lot to answer for.
As does our present foreign Secretary to be honest.
Absolutely
Science knows no boundaries today.
Nor does political stupidity it seems
CIA set Chinese spies up with a lot of false f22/ 35 drawings China wasted billions following the wrong menu and need up with a gen 4 fighter at best.
Hmmm…at this point, does anyone believe that the PLAN does not have the USN in its crosshairs? Would probably be instructive to review the policies and decisions of both the RN and USN toward the Imperial Japanese Navy during the mid-to-late 1930’s, in order to inform current leaders re lessons learned from pre-war period. 🤔
Sorry but I doubt with a change of government here in the UK later this year the RN will not be going anywhere near China or Taiwan. We may be able to sell you a couple of Carriers that are deemed surplus though 🙂
You think a Labour Government would not send a Carrier Group into the SCS or thereabouts? Where would they send our carriers instead? I think you may have the wrong Party in mind when talking about selling both our new carriers. Tories (Cameron) wanted to sell PoW on coming into office, Further back in time Thatcher/Nott had the sale of an Invincible-class carrier to Australia very well advanced, until the Falklands conflict occured. It was a Labour Govt who initiated the QE carrier project and a Tory one that finished off the Invincible class prematurely along with its Harriers and… Read more »
Coalition not Tory
No, the Tories were almost completely in charge the Lib Dems were naive and totally hoodwinked manipulated and out manoeuvred by the Tories during the so called coalition. ( I am a Lib Dem by the way).
Splitting straws really, it was Cameron who called the shots, swung the axe and put our armed forces on its knees…..
OK, to be pedantic, but the Tories were the senior party in the Coalition and made the Defence decisions.
It was a Labour government that scrapped the CVA-01 carriers in 1966. It was a Tory Government in 1973 that ordered the first Invincible class. It was New Labour that scrapped the Sea Harriers. Both parties have previous.
Let’s play go back in time by 60 years. Could you add the politics and economics to your post. Ad infinitum, the Cons ordered through deck cruisers, not, aircraft carriers. Facts matter, especially if you want to use a time machine. In near time politics, the Cons have been a disaster for Defence. Labour have said they would focus on NATO tasks, given the state of our frigate force, is that a bad thing? Defence will need a massive uplift in spending and that can only come from curtailing the spend on NHS Management trusts. Another candidate ripe for intervention… Read more »
Fact is both the Tories & Labour have been a disaster. Liz Truss showed that between Gordon in 2008-10 & Rishi during Covid, the UK credit card is maxed out. Whoever wins the next election, they will have little room for serious extra spending.
In effect the track is nationalised as Network Rail is a state company. As for saving billions by nationalising the train company’s, i find it unlikely. Uk rail subsidy is about third lower per mile than France or Germany as the cost is passed onto the passenger. I cant see that being a popular policy if the government were fully running the network
There are now several DOR services. I think only Anglia has returned a premium to Govt. However, we still have delay attribution payment between NR and a TOC, even if DOR, requiring staff, lawyers and accountants to calculate the payments. Office of Road Rail adjudicate on whether an open access operator should run a certain timetable – given the troubles of Deutsch Bhan and their decision to withdraw from UK rail, now is the time to renationalise rail under one roof and in one fell swoop axe the middle management duplication of NR and TOCs. Create a comprehensive procurement system… Read more »
Ha!!!! Delay attribution. They ring at least 3 times a shift.🤔
The UK simply needs to spend a true 2% of GDP well to have a capable armed force across all services ( Get pensions out of the numbers)
Procurement exercises such as competitive fixed price approaches for T31 and the collaborative MBDA precision effects programs deliver value. Specification and design tinkering post order but pre delivery will always drain billions as will decades long concept programs
100%
Interesting, you think the renationalisation will happen? Have not heard this from Starmer.
Morning Daniele
I think the first 5 year term will be steady as she goes.
Should it look good for a second year term then:
Rail nationalisation, electrification.
Rejoin the EU referendum
Green Energy
Nightmare time.
They will not renew any franchises so effectively nationalised over time.
Starmer? He’s a a younger victor meldrew
Sorry how would nationalised rail save billions, what through the money paid to shareholders? It would save around 1b over 5 years. But you also need to consider the cost savings private rail has brought which there will be no incentive to do if nationalised. We forget the best railways on the planet are in Japan and are private and run with minimal subsidies. I’d support nationalised rail if they show a plan to fully modernised, like when the first driverless train be in place. Japan is already trialing these yet it the UK its considered science fiction. The problem… Read more »
Each TOC has to put together a bid. These bids run into the 100ms according to Modern Railways and is recouped from fares. At major stations, take Preston, there is a Network Rail(NR) manager who is also mirrored by Avanti and Northern oppos and there their staff. Routes have a NR management team and guess what? Route directors can receive £500,000/annum. Then as Daniele admits, delay attribution minutes. Where the TOCS and NR have teams of bean counters arguing over a 1 minute delay for over occupancy of a track. However, where NR caused the delay, they are chased. All… Read more »
And labour the order the Queen Elizabeth class and the Tory’s that tried to scrap them.
Let’s see, we can’t have a bigger army and all the other toys.
We need a huge increase in growth that’s not funded by borrowing. Neither party has any idea on how they will make that happen.
Lets not forget that going further back Labour cancelled CVA01 and ran down the remaining carriers
When it comes to Defence no HMG are any good 😕 🇬🇧
Although I don’t believe you are factually incorrect with the historical information, I also don’t believe that this is any indication of future policy. Politicians will continue to do as they have all done recently. Do whatever it takes to get elected and then re-elected. 99% of the time that does not include spending sufficient money on the defence of the realm. I doubt it will change unless Russia beats down Ukraine and then tries to annex one of the Baltic States. Of course then there will be lots of hand wringing and pointing of fingers across the floor of… Read more »
Thanks Iain for the post. Our preparedness for Covid-19 and the subsequent execution, might be a broad indicator as to how a General War might unfold. No major PPE stocks held. A disbelieving PM who did not attend five early COBRA meetings. Huge mistakes made about everything – timing of first lockdown, release of infected elderly bed-blockers to care homes, purchase of poor PPE with contracts awarded to cronies, mega-expensive Test & Trace system that did not work well. Rule breaking by politicians and SPADs. Partygate. Thousands of people dead. NHS nearly breaks. Award honours to the guilty or promote… Read more »
Watch a series called War Factories it’s on free view. It’s clear in the 30s Britain’s low tax economy allowed for good growth and therefore we had the economy to support rearming. Command economies like Germany and Russia failed miserably due to too much state interference . Russia managed to produce masses amounts of the wrong stuff, starved its people and ended up needin a trillion dollars of aid in today’s money. Germany couldn’t bring its self to introduce mass production techniques because they were considered to be a product of ‘Jewish Capitalism’. They had large numbers of Tanks going… Read more »
Thanks for the tip on ‘War factories’. I am not a Labour Party supporter or a Corbynite – far from it. I alsways used to vote Tory. Did I really say that Corbyn, if PM, would have improved our armed forces? I don’t think so. I did say that the Cons had a rubbish record on steering us though the Covid crisis. The whole point of me saying that was that if we went into a General War, the Cons would probably have done an equally rubbish job at managing that crisis. Not that Corbyn would have improved our armed… Read more »
Spot on.
Labour will have big spending ambitions in a range of policy areas. Defence will not be one of the priorities. There is a 16+ billion deficit in equipment aspirations. … Upshot … cuts are highly likely. They won’t cut pay in fact they may have to increase pay. … They won’t cut the symbolic army deployments in eastern Europe … they will try to avoid cutting anything that impacts British industry negatively. … that leaves assets that are currently around, particularly those which have high manpower requirements. Guess which vessels will be in the budget cutting crosshairs?
I am guessing you suggest that Labour would cut either one Carrier Strike Group (a Carrier plus a number of escorts) or both carriers and not cut escorts?
Without carriers, the Navy would no longer be a bluewater Navy in essence. Could that really happen?
And in both cases the tories inherited a financial mess from Labour. And in 97 Labour inherited a rapidly growing economy. It is the economics of the day that dictate these decisions. Labour (might) be on other the other side of the argument this time round.
It was the Cons that certainly allowed at least one of those economic disasters with banking deregulation which led in part to the financial crises circa 08, although howmany unscrupulous bankers went to prison for their deeds?
Today, we have affordable housing because the Cons allowed banks to offer more money than they had through securitisation of debt which was then sold on creating a pyramid of unfunded debt that brought the banks down. Play fair Mr Blay.
And have a Great New Year!
Which all started in America with cheap mortgages. And Labour had been in power for 11 years by 2008. Mr Blair liked going to war. But he didn’t like paying for it. Hence the very large black hole in the defence budget by 2010. But I’ll meet you half way 😜Both parties are pants when it comes to defence. Both see it like house insurance. You definitely need it. But nobody likes paying for it. 👍
Unfortunately you are sadly right they do see it as house insurance…which is entirely the wrong way to look at it…house insurance does not prevent your house burning down….having a very strong defence policy ( in some cases and in specific domains offence policy), strong military industrial base and strong military that regularly deploys and shows its prowess…prevents your proverbial house burning down in the first place.I think that’s been forgotten.
Affordable housing? That is a typo I assume?
Redshift wrote: “Affordable housing? That is a typo I assume?” The world wide 2007–2008 financial crisis began in the US due to the widescale application of subprime mortgages targeting low-income homebuyers, (Subprime lending is the provision of loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule) In 2008 alone, the United States government allocated over $900 billion to special loans and rescues related to the U.S. housing bubble. With most of that money going to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) Both of whom were all we heard about… Read more »
and British Banks were directly involved with buying into that as well chasing the pot of gold .
One-HBoS-was the 5th biggest UK bank at the time and had to be rescued by Lloyds as it was too big to be bailed out by the Tories.
This was despite the CEO at the time -one Andy Hornby-repeatedly insisting HBoS were a ‘strong and capitalised bank’ …until they weren’t!
In the interviening 15 years 50% of the accumulated staff have been axed.
It would have been far better to have nationalised HBoS rather than keelhaul Lloyds into taking it on.
Yeah lloyds wasn’t heavily exposed so it’s unfair to say all banks. Barcleys and HSBC sort alternatives so received not UK government money.
Indeed it also shows the importance of keeping the commercial banks and investment banks separate…one is a requirement national asset and part of the structure of a healthy economy….the other is gambling for high stakes and high risks.
Ta.
…UNAFFORDABLE housing…
Wouldn’t have mattered even if we had stronger regulations the issue was contagion and that would have hit a regulated Bank here in the UK.
And had we had an economy that had no debt or even a surplus riding out the crisis would gave been far easier.
To be honest Labour would of got rid of the Invincible class in time , the scraping of the Sea Harriers 2 was the start ,fine fighter. 😕
You cannot possibly know that about Labour and the carriers.
There were no plans to scrap the invincible class until Cameron took over.
To be fair, the Invincible class were on their arse when they were withdrawn, all in a poor material state and ready for recycling. That’s not to say we couldn’t have squeezed a couple more year from them. Scrapping the highly capable GR9 fleet was insane. They would have been adding mass to the QE Class while the F35 force slowly grew. Labour on the other hand scrapped the highly useful Jaguar GR3 fleet, another stupid decision. Both parties are terrible on defence, but I would suggest that the hollowing out has removed any possible room for manoeuvre, there’s no… Read more »
Your maybe right , it’s just my opinion 👍
Agree, Labour are very clear on their commitment to the pacific, they have clearly stated this.
Please share where you’ve seem this.
it from the CND response to the Labour Party conference motion on its defence manifesto: “CND condemns composite motion 1 DEFENCE, passed at Labour Party conference which commits any future Labour government to the continuation of Tory policies on increased military spending, nuclear weapons, and the AUKUS pact, which poses a nuclear proliferation risk, as well as driving a new arms race in the Indo-Pacific. The motion reaffirmed Labour’s “absolute” support for Britain’s nuclear weapons and NATO spending commitments, deepening military ties in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, as well as promising to increase the British military manufacturing base.”CND Oct 2023… still… Read more »
I can’t argue with you Graham, both parties have taken part in the willful destruction of our armed forces, but Cameron absolutely stands out and has to take the gold medal for defence cuts!
Agreed Cameron with out a doubt Gold medal 🎖 and to think he was on GB news tonight saying UK forces may have to take Action in the red sea , what with I ask 🤔 🇬🇧 for me he and is little mate MR George Osborne put the UK in a very Dangerous position hardly been able to Defend our selfs let alone Attack an Enemy 🙄 sorry for the rant 🇬🇧
Not ranting at all Andrew, it’s a simple statement of fact, Cameron and Osborne accomplished what the Germans could never do and brought our armed forces to it’s very knees….
When I hear people saying the Tories are the ‘party of defence’ it makes me laugh.
Your not ranting he was geopolitically incompetent, the level of error he made in regards to china is immense, he should not be foreign secretary simply for the message it sends to a nation that is for all intent and purpose our defecto enemy ( china).
I’m staying out of this one….I just get shouted at when I mention Labour’s record vs Tory in assets chopped and programs cancelled since 95.
Morning DM dont think there’s ever going to be a winner on this one 🤗
They are both appalling mate, the reality is the serious ( post NS professional Armed forces) cutting started way back in 1957 under Duncan Sands and it’s never stopped.
Governments of both colours have handed the baton between them and carried on slicing away for 67 years so far…
The army has been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War.
I don’t support either party. So won’t get into he said she said arguments. All I do is interpret information coming out. Which points yo Labour’s shift to Europe, North Atlantic and North Sea. Applying logic we just don’t need Carriers to patrol home waters. You may disagree with my logic because its applied to your party off choice, your entitled to your opinion. It’s irrelevant whats happened in the past. we have massive financial constraints so if Labour want to recraft our armed forces to be European focused and larger army cuts must come elsewhere, simples. Tories if they… Read more »
I don’t support either party (the Cons are certainly no longer my party of choice and haven’t been for some years – they have created Broken Britain and not just in the defence arena) – and it will be tricky to work out who to vote for at the next election. Labour seems to send out mixed messages as previously John Healey has been supportive of the Indo-Pacific tilt. Very true that carriers have no role in home waters where air power can come from land airbases. We have always had carriers for our ‘Global Britain’ role even before that… Read more »
Party politics is for another site not this one.both mainstream parties are responsible for the mess
Ive always reckoned 1 would be sold – no so sure the yanks would want one – but ..well they’ve been involved as much as we have witn them so the familiarity that have provided may be the deal maker…
USMC might be interested considering the loss of Bonhomme Richard and the knock on impact in refits and new builds?
🤔 If it becomes necessary because of budget constraints, please make the carriers, T-26s, T-45s, Astute and AUKUS class SSNs and Dreadnought SSBNs available for purchase by Uncle Sugar. Reasonably certain US has benefited in the past from discarded/retired British equipment (e.g., C-130Js).
Also eg – a lot of Harriers!
I think/hope people are joking about the second best navy in the world selling off its principle assets, even ones that are very new or haven’t even been built yet!
Duh…had forgotten the Harriers! 🙄 Perhaps only half-joking, if a philosophically pacifist, unilateral disarmament government is elected at some point. UK could adopt the Republic of Ireland military/foreign policy model. 🤔😉
I think we may see a slight of hand. UKDJ had an article on the EU wanting a carrier. So Labour could sell or lease to the EU. Would save money and they could argue it fits with their new European posture.
Whether there is a change of govt or not I can’t see anything changing
It’s not just the USN former…it’s the entire US economy and industry…china now has 150 times the ship building capacity than the US..in a war of attrition who is going to regenerate their navy quicker…they have accepted a 2% loss in growth over years to harden their economy against war with the west…what have we done…you don’t need to see the ships like this to know the US is in their sights..they have told everyone they are going to war this decade over Taiwan and as the U.S. has said it will defend Taiwan that means china is going to… Read more »
Actually concur w/ your analysis. Our only significant difference is that you believe WW III will remain a conventional war. Eventually, one of us will be proven to be correct; rooting for your prediction, would wager on mine.
It may go nuclear, the only reason I think it will not is the pure size of the pacific and the fact that china and the US are so far away, neither can actually knock the other out…just drive to strategic exhaust…I honestly think the loser will take the loss with a plan to rebuild and fight another round…if china wins the US and Europe will still exist…..if china losses it will still exist.. i think If the U.S. and china were closer and invasion of either homeland was possible nuclear war would be inevitable…. The only wild card I… Read more »
Believe that your recitation of probable ChiCom actions during a conventional conflict, will be the cause of escalation.
150 times, are you sure, 150% maybe, X150 nope.
The latest assessment is actually more like 220 times..US ship building capacity is now less than 100,000 tons a year…china ship building capacity is 23.8million tons a year in 2022 this equated to 4 ships under construction in the US and just about 1800 in china. Chinese heavy industrial capacity in war related industries is staggeringly higher than the U.S. and Europe combined.
It depends if the US has time to do what it did when it joined Ww2. They built a ship yard in just weeks to build liberty ships. China is still a command economy and political structure at heart and history shows those types of countries don’t make the best choices during wartime.
The U.S. no longer has the civilian ship building capacity to switch over…it is to be honest buggered. In 2022 the US ship building capacity ( all types) was 100,000 tones per year..chinas ship building capacity was 23.8 million tons..in 2022 the US had a total of 4-5 ships under construction china had 1792…(from the U.S. congressional research service 2023..this is the US saying it’s buggered) the U.S. shipping industry effectively no longer exists beyond the trickle of military contracts…china now builds and launches more than 80% of the worlds shipping….essentially china is where the UK was at the point… Read more »
America has two naval ship yards. Proceedings podcast of the US Naval Institute 2023, questioned why there was no home defence and a senior marine said they were woefully protected would be a first choice target of opportunity ergo, no naval ship building.
Meanwhile, China would be pumping them out.
I still seriously doubt the PLAN’s ability to take on the USN with the exception of Chinese green water areas. The only reason that the Japanese were able to consider an attack in 1941 was the distraction caused by the war in Europe that removed British forces from the region and allowed the Japanese to take French territory unopposed. Added to that was US isolation and the poor state of funding by congress of the US military. The roles are reversed now a days with Europe under funded and US forces over stretched. However Europe and the UK must focus… Read more »
Read an account that stated RN carriers would probably backfill USN carriers normally assigned to the Atlantic/Med, in order to release additional USN carriers for combat in Indo-Pacific theater. This will be an incredibly lethal environment, which should be avoided by all, if feasible. UK may hazard CSGs in a last ditch effort to stave off invasion of AU/NZ, but reasonably convinced the conflict will have proceeded to a nuclear exchange by that point.
Addendum: Congress is either considering, or has passed, a bill prohibiting unilateral withdrawal from NATO by POTUS.
The Bill past already but it’s open to debate if congress can legally stop him doing it.
If POTUS wants out of NATO all they have to do is state they are out and article 5 no longer applies.
It would be up to the Supreme Court to argue the case but that would take years.
The French did much the same under CDG.
The big problem is that NATO would effectively stop functioning as a lot of the legal elements of how NATO works is tied to the US…it would probably end the alliance completely and a new set of agreements developed that were European centric.
But I honestly don’t think the U.S. would go there..even trump, it would be geopolitical madness for the US and would probably cause china to immediately invade Taiwan on the assumption of maximum geopolitical instability in the west.
We have a treaty obligation with Singapore Malaysia Australia and NZ so if the Chinese get that far we would get involved even if the US left NATO. Taiwan is a different story. If the US left NATO and then China attacked Taiwan and the US got involved I could see the UK sitting out. If the US remains in NATO then the UK would go to war with China even over Taiwan if the US was involved. NATO means everything to the UK government. Since 1949 we have built our entire Geo strategic framework and armed forces around it.… Read more »
I agree..but not only that it would create the political instability in the west that china would want and I could see china simply launching a war pretty much straight of the bat from the U.S. bouncing out of NATO ( I don’t think people appreciate just how close china is to going to war..all it’s looking for is that geopolitical instability in the west or domestic instability in the U.S..and bang it will be at the US… I do think in that case the rest of Europe would go not our war..( china would be using all its influence… Read more »
Jonathan, your commentary is always so confident and you seem sure you know how things will pan out in geo-strategic future moves. What oracle do you use?
No one has an oracle Graham, but simply put if something is catastrophic and in the realms of the possible or likely you should always assume it will happen and plan accordingly. Simply put if you look at something say gosh that a realistic and “shit if it happens” I’m utterly f@cked and if you have not fully prepared or put mitigation in place in my view your being foolish. if it’s happened before and the same thing or similar is happening again you don’t stick your hands in your ears and close your eyes, you look at the evidence,… Read more »
Hi Jonathan, I respect and admire the level of effort you have gone to in reseaching the Chinese threat and in constructing your post. Very compelling. But is China ready to lose nearly all the benefits that economic transformation has given them? If they went to war against Taiwan and their backers (the USA) – and possibly with any allies of Taiwan & the US who chose to actively partipate in military operations, then sanctions would apply and they would lose trading markets. More of China’s economy would be allocated to prosecuting the war – currently 30% of the Russian… Read more »
Hi Graham yes indeed, but in this you do have to remember that china is not a nation in the same way as the west. It really is one man Xi he controls china in a way no other nation is controlled. Infact he has the same level of control as Mao and you just have to look at how far Mao went in his beliefs…he shattered China causing the death of 2 million people..but they still love him. Chinese culture has a few very interesting beliefs that have basically shaped and Xi and his personal belief systems ( and… Read more »
Hi Jonathan, I am worried that you may be losing out on life by spending so much time telling me about China! Our Government is not interested in responding to the crisis in Europe (Ukraine) by increasing the defence budget to 2.5 or 3% and rearming. It had IR 2023 Refresh specifically to take into accountb the war in Ukraine – and also refreshed the DCP. Result – no more money for defence, no pledge to reverse either the 10,000 army cut or the reduction to 148 tanks. No pledge to go back to buying 5 RAF Wedgetails not 3… Read more »
I’m pretty sure a labour government faced with a US exit of NATO under a Trump presidency that then got himself in to a war with China would see the UK sitting out. The real damage to the US of a pull out of NATO on its pacific strategy is that US sanctions would be massively reduced in effectiveness if Europe decided to not invoke sanctions. A US blockade of Chinese sea lanes in the Indian Ocean would be massively reduced in effectiveness if it was unable to use Diego Garcia assuming no Australian or Indian participation. The US in… Read more »
NATO surely only goes to war (General War) if a NATO nation is attacked, not if the Chinese attack Taiwan and the US choose to get involved.
We went to war in Iraq in 2003 because of our NATO membership?? Never heard anyone say that before. Blair took us to war to show solidarity with the US in order to deal with a perceived WMD threat – nothing to do with NATO.
Any plan by China to successfully invade Taiwan probably involves massive opening attacks on US bases in Guam Japan and possibly Hawaii. It’s a point of interpretation of NATO article 6 if an attack on these territories would invoke NATO article 5 but the US would certainly see it that way as would the UK so it would very much be a NATO issue.
The attack has to be in Europe or North America. It’s clear – no need to fuss about interpretation. “Article 5The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties,… Read more »
I think you have the correct interpretation of article five, it’s Europe, North America, and the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer ( which is why the Falklands was not an article five). I think china would limit any strategic surprise strikes to the major bases on the first island change…but I may be wrong and it also day one attacks the second chain as it would see Guam as a major node to knock out ( it’s about 1500nm from Guam to theatre, so reaction time would be around a week for anything immediately ready to sail… Read more »
I lifted the Article 5 words straight from NATOs website – it needs no interpretation as it is clear as day. NATO would not call Article 5 if a US base in Japan, Sth Korea, Guam etc were attacked. It is immaterial if the US wants to claim that Guam is part of the US (it is in fact an organized, unincorporated territory of the US located in the Micronesia subregion of the western Pacific Ocean) – Guam is in the Pacific Ocean and not in North America or Europe. As you say Article 5 was not called on Argentina’s… Read more »
Hi graham, if china could take Taiwan without a major war it will..but the U.S. has been very very powerful in its voicing of the fact an attack on Taiwan is an attack on the U.S..Biden used this language.he specifically stated the US commitment to Taiwan is the same as the U.S. commitment to a NATO county and the US would go to war with china over Tiawan… This is the problem, China believes that the U.S. will go to war..but china must unify with Taiwan ( this is probably chinas single most important national goal it utterly dominates their… Read more »
Biden may not be President this time next year. Another President might have a different view on defending Taiwan in the event of Chinese threats to invade or actual invasion.
If however the US is attacked by China, it is not necessary for the US to call Article 5 – NATO decides this collectively in the North Atlantic Council.
I worry abou the phrase parties agree
Why? This was written in 1949, a bit late now to be concerned about the wording. When 9/11 happened the parties did agree that an attack had taken place against a Member and that a response was required.
From a UK Geopolitical stand point the transatlantic relationship and NATO are indistinguishable.
I think there is a difference. NATO deploys operationally as its governing body (the North American Council) decides in agreement with the Governments of the member nations – they are focussed on security within the Euro-Atlantic area especially eastern Europe.
The transatlantic relationship covers many aspects, not just military – military operations involving the US and UK rather than the wider NATO are operations of choice – US-led and supported by UK and are in other areas of the world ie Middle East/Arabian peninsula (Gulf War 1 and 2).
Domestically engineered but definitely not Chinese tech, is it, probably nicked from Western Unis and reverse engineered EMALS.
I think we need to protect research of this type much more fiercely. Too much that has no use outside defence is available publicly, making it child’s play for foreign states to “borrow” our engineers’ time and effort.
Interesting that the Chinese are still boasting about AESA and stealth coverings. That stuff is 4th gen at best and I doubt they will have the networking and intel gathering capabilities of, say, an F35. Probably equivalent in all but manoeuvrability to a Typhoon.
I think an F15C could handle something like J-15B. And will still have way superior radar and avionics.
However, those F15Cs need to sortie from protected airfields close enough to cover the CSGs and fend off Chinese multi-domain attacks; the USMC have smelt the coffee with regard to fighting in the littoral but have not been funded for it, despite loss of their Abrams. Worrying times Robert.
Agreed, don’t envision any airfields or ports in the Indo-Pacific remaining intact after the commencement of hostilities, including Hawaii.
Agree china have mocked up a large number of US bases in the western pacific and practiced flattening them…I would lay good money the the first firm actionable intel the US gets on an indo pacific war starting will be 1500 theatre based ballistic and cruise missiles hitting their bases. The unfortunate truth is for the US to break a Chinese encirclement of Taiwan it’s going to have to put its carriers into range of Chinese land based aircraft and its green water attrition navy….it will undoubtedly be the largest, most intense and bloodiest navel battle in history..it’s going to… Read more »
US (ex CONUS) and all treaty allies will be devastated upon conflict initiation, including Australia, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, SK and possibly certain non-aligned countries such India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Taiwan (of course), Vietnam, etc. Predict that the level of destruction will be so great that it will not leave any POTUS any recourse but to order a full retaliatory strike, whether measured in hours, days or weeks. Subsequently, remaining countries will not need to worry about the PRC. Nuclear winter, perhaps, but confidently predict PRC will no longer be a factor in world affairs.
Except it won’t be J-15Bs for long. There have been plans to build carrier enabled J-20s for some time, and J-35s are just around the corner (out in prototype). My guess is they will skip at least one of these planes and will get to the J-35 within the next three or four years.
I can’t see a carrier J-20, it’s just too big.
But under the skin they are a generation or more behind western fast jets. They can not churn out aircraft of the quality and capability of the F35, F22, Typhoon, Super Hornet and F15EX overnight. Not even close.
But quantity has a quality all of its own, as someone else once said. Best not to undesestimate the Chinese armed forces.
Well. Russia has quantity. And they can’t invade a neighbour like they thought they could. Because they don’t have the quality, training, and capability. If they did. It would have been over in 4 weeks. China has zero real-world warfighting experience.
You are right that factors other than quantity play a part in military success (or failure).
But although Russia did not seized the whole of Ukraine in 4 weeks, they have caused immense destruction, loss of life and suffering to Ukraine and her people.
That is why we should not underestimate a sizeable, albeit poor quality, enemy (Russia) – or a sizeable but inexperienced enemy (China).
About the same time the USAF has NGAD then.
GOOGLE AMARG experience and see what the u.s has for future reactivation we could treble the size of THE RAF FOR peanuts.
Nothing costs peanuts when it comes to the military.
EMALS (linear motors) are not new or secret tech. There used to be a little noddy train at Birmingham airport that ran on it. That was from the early 80s too.
I think an airport train is not really equivalent to launching a multi-million pound aircraft off the side of a moving ship. The tech needed to efficiently get that much power without overheating/ having too many Gs/ breaking (the American don’t have this nailed down so much) is quite significant.
The MAGLEV train.
It didn’t go that fast as I recall?
That said the first liner induction motor was developed at Imperial in the 1940’s.
And the Chinese do have three fast MAGLEV trains so there will be some inherent understanding of the tech.
If you can get a train, which is very heavy, to accelerate to 431kph, Shanghai Maglev Express, then maybe. Although it does use German tech and not native Chinese. A repeating story. But maybe why they spend so much money on the train as what they wanted was the experience of the tech?
Hey, you mean the maglev, nothing Noddy about it !!
And at Alton towers.
What makes you think that The Chinese Copy of EMALS actually works. All I see are three slots in the deck. It took USN a fair while to get their version working. I wouldn’t be so sure that this is going to be ready any time soon when it comes to ultimate functionality. I am sure we will see some carefully choreographed video of launches from the carrier with apparent full load outs. But I would be very surprised if the Chinese jets were carrying anything more than empty fibreglass shells. As others have pointed out the Chinese do have… Read more »
My point exactly
It’s like Russia post WW1, the job of the engineers was basically to look at Western kit and try to work out how to build one. Like in Hunt for Red October its sonar is the latest french edition “And maybe even a little upgraded”.
Should say WW2, I meant with jets, radar etc.
I still can’t quite get my head around giving the USSR the RR Nene jet engine (or the Americans the earlier powerjet tbh). Does any other country on earth give away its highest tech secrets?
That was Wilson who sanctioned that I believe?
The soviets couldnt believe their ‘luck’….
Long before the Wilson government although he may have been in it. Attlee I think which is odd as he was very patriotic and quite anti Soviet. Perhaps it happened behind his back? Wilson killed off TSR2.
I’m pretty sure it’s fair to say the US verson is not working…it’s still shutting down flight ops for 2 days out of every seven…
I wouldn’t know……
They had a big whinge about it and a few other systems…(catapults, jet blast defectors and lifts seem to be the big three problems)…via pentagon test and evaluation office report January last…a bit of a sorry report really..but it’s a new ship and they all have their issues…but it’s essentially boiled down to catapult failure every 500 sorties or so ( I seem to recall the average was 470) needing a full reset so stopping flying opps for a day…it’s basically not really able to undertake sustained operational flying ops at present…lucky we did not go for the same system… Read more »
You know what doesn’t breakdown? The “cope slope”. Oh how the turn tables…
I’ve been reading a lot on the above Chinese carrier and it isn’t getting a lot of good press and that’s from China observer Google
China’s Junk Aircraft Carrier Fears to Sail? A Big Joke Due to Copycat Failure
Not the only site , that raises questions, but the China Observer site looks a little deeper than others
Is EMALS really ‘top secret’ western technology that is not in the public domain? [I appreciate you did not use those exact words] Prof Eric Laithwaite was doing doctoral work on linear induction motors in the late 1940s/early 50s, and continued his successful development of them when he became professor of heavy electrical engineering at Imperial College in 1964. He was also interested in maglev for transportation; he was involved in creating a self-stable magnetic levitation system called ‘Magnetic river’. I am sure the Chinese read all about it decades ago and before the Brits and Americans worked up their… Read more »
The issue is not magnetic induction. A basic “railgun” can be made in a school science lab. The issue is making the think powerful and safe enough to put a heavy jet off the side of a ship at takeoff speed 999 times out of 1000. This is where the issue lies, not in the technology by in its perfection. This is where Western reliability and expertise is such an advantage
Take a look at the reports on Chinas armed forces on China Observer Youtube and you get a wildly different picture. China is far, far behind in engine tech for aircraft (lower power, reliability- essentially 4th gen for materials science) which leads to inferior combat ability, electromagnetic catapult issues (in that they use an inferior approach), structural integrity from poor steel, poor training and readiness….what looks impressive is deeply flawed. China desperately needs these carriers to be nuclear because they lack electrical power for the catapults, as well as upping its engine game or buying superior (for the airframe) Russian… Read more »
I’m not going to disagree, but the last thing we should do is underestimate a potential adversary. How competent they are will only really be known if a conflict arises. I’d rather we assume they’re capable then be proven wrong than the otherway around.
The lack of Chinese real world conflict experience in any domain on any continent puts a major question mark against them. Or even access to very realistic training deployments like Red Flags or Joint Warrior’s. Western coalition forces have 40 odd years of working together.
True, but the scumbag, slimeball ChiComs have a significant percentage of 1.4B bodies to utilize in human waves, if nothing more sophisticated. That’s gonna require a significant amount of munitions…🤔😳
But right now I suspect they have fairly good access to lesson learnt by Russia.
I fully agree. If we understimate an adversary we will not ‘up our game’ and so will not re-arm and incrementally increase our force numbers.
Paradoxically, we do understand our enemy and estimate them… but, the NHS not Defence will get any funding and we are not incrementally increasing our force numbers.
1930s deja vu.
I fear you are right. Only just read today that a Professor of War Studies at Potsdam University says it will take European NATO, especially Germany, 15 years to get ready for General War in the continent. Nore on the land side, than the naval side, methinks, but even so….
I would say that’s ok as there is no real chance of a major land war in Europe..unfortunately I read an interesting piece that linked together the fact that the anti western collective may end up working in concert..if china ( personally I think when) decides it’s lost patients with Taiwan, invades tiawan kicks of a pacific war and attacks the US, Russia May work in concert….unfortunately the worst possible ( but not so likely) case is now china launching an indo pacific war…Russia supporting by engaging NATO ( say in the Baltic/high north), Iran making its Middle Eastern power… Read more »
Hi Jonathan, you clearly think that the war in Ukraine is not a major land war in Europe – I think the Ukrainians would disagree! Poland, who is rearming massively, clearly fear Russian invasion. Even Germany has decided finally to increase defence spending. Some, including General (Retd) Shirreff, consider that Russia might one day attack one or more Baltic countries. Others think Russia might invade at least the Russian speaking areas of Moldova (16% of Moldovans speak Russian as their first language). There is little evidence of wider and significant collusion between the Axis of Evil countries aside from some… Read more »
Hi graham, the Ukraine conflict is a war between two nations..when I was taking about a major lane war I was meaning general war..involving multiple nations.sorry miss use of language. as for an axis of evil, it does not need to be formalised..the WW2 axis was very much informal in its beginnings as one fire created the opportunity for the next and the next…with agreements and collusion between nations a shifting pattern…WW2 was in reality a number of very distinct wars each given opportunity to occur by the other. Infact there are views that see the period from the start… Read more »
👍 Always better to overestimate capabilities of potential opponents. Vastly preferable to underestimating and paying the deficit in blood.
I believe similar happened during the BoB, albeit non-intentionally?
Germany underestimated our fighter aircraft capacity and we over estimated theirs.
Something to do with how the aircraft ‘battle groups’ were structured and the ammount of planes in the ‘squadrons’.
Either way it worked to our benefit though so alls well that ends well 😉
Correct! “WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force repelled a Chinese invasion of Taiwan during a massive war game last fall by relying on drones acting as a sensing grid, an advanced sixth-generation fighter jet able to penetrate the most contested environments, cargo planes dropping pallets of guided munitions and other novel technologies yet unseen on the modern battlefield. But the service’s success was ultimately pyrrhic. After much loss of life and equipment, the U.S. military was able to prevent a total takeover of Taiwan by confining Chinese forces to a single area. Furthermore, the air force that fought in the… Read more »
Whilst performing immagration duties, i had to board a bulk carrier to see off one of te crew and his wife who had boarded in the Netherlands and they were flying back to India via Heathrow. Speaking with the Captain he was telling me the vessel was Chinese made and they had to strip out all the electrics and reinstall new on handover. He only expected the vessel to last 10 years in service as it was such poor quality.
As a bye word we have a thing in our household and thats dont buy anything stamped MADE IN CHINA.
And Russia has never matched or come close to matching western engine or radar technology.
I think you’re mostly right in that reverse engineered stolen IP does not equate to a deep understanding of the technology, how it works, material science on how to build the very best. However not sure that matters very much when China can mass produce and likely out manufacture the Western world in military industrial base. The only sensible response is for the Western aligned nations eg NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Philippines to have a 2 power rule eg between the alliance we must maintain a 50% advantage over combined Chinese and Russian alliance. Our government… Read more »
The issue is, our large-shipbuilding is in theory capped out until about 2045 when the last T83 goes in. In practical terms, we could probably squeeze in an extra couple of T26s, though if the project was advanced enough I would personally prefer bringing T83 forwards as a large air defence cruiser (Add the tonnage together of T26 and smaller Destroyer) with a longer build time.
Rosyth will of course hopefully be churning out light frigates based on AH140 for a long while yet.
Except, T83 is not up to speed which is why I would wish this Con Govt do one thing – order 3 more T26 and sign the contract.
The alternative is a superglued B3 OPV build, for an astonishing amount.
What I wouldn’t mind is a stretched River/ Mini landing ship crossover. It’s pretty obvious now that without USA resources or Chinese indifference to casualties, large-scale amphibious assault is a thing of the past.
Therefore a ship the size of a small frigate, with maybe a 57mm and the ability to carry a couple/ three or four Offshore Raiding Craft for coastal raiding might be very useful. In peacetime they would carry the autonomous minesweepers in places like the Gulf. Based on T31, Rosyth could put out 4 in 5 years no problem.
Quantity has a Quality of it’s Own, is an expression generally associated with the USSR/Russia. But perhaps the most extreme contemporary example could be instanced by the eventual churn rate on the British designed, United States manufactured Liberty ships, which comfortably saw off tonnage losses from German submarines.
‘These vessels were not built to last’, was indeed entirely accurate:-
Records of hulls buckled by the time they reach port – actually fortunate for their crews;
As a few fell apart and sunk en route.
Apples and oranges.
No, they were mostly carrying essential war supplies, including for Russia, and also troops, but likely a few apples & oranges I grant you. And possibly sausages, baked beans, etc – well known how the RN likes to announce how many consumed per trip.
Simple question. How are ypu paying for these massed produced Frigates and submarines?
To be honest..money is in the end only money and a war with china will cost a huge amount more than a few more boats built…so the issue should not be where is the money coming from ( china is not concerned about this and is presently burning money like water..which is one of the indicators they are planning to go kinetic as it’s not sustainable..sort of like the third Reich in the mid 30s). The big issue is not so much building them, ( we could after all get Korea to knock out a load of frigates) but how… Read more »
👍👍
Hopping they are so crap as that the advantage they have in the initial conflict being in their own seas ect is not a plan. Also it completely misses the point of how china plans to win. It knows that the US still has the advantage in combat power in a sharp swift conflict..so china is not going to do that it’s going to play to its advantage…most commentators who look at the wider geopolitics and not just the boys toys think it’s very likely china is assessing the following: 1) it will lever heavily on strategic surprise and the… Read more »
You are missing one vital element though. China needs western consumers to be successful. Just like we need them. China has nothing to gain from such a scenario. Such enormous shocks to the global economy effect us all. And China would be finished. The Chinese population are now getting used to a western style standard of living and a rising Middle class. They will not want to give that up for a self inflicted conflict. You are also massively underestimating US warfighting capability and the friendly nations surrounding China. Japan. South Korea. Malaysia. Singapore. Indonesia. Australia ect. All with 5th… Read more »
I beg indulgence, but I was just taking heart from no-one having mentioned that. The refrain that’s echoed throughout recent major peer conflicts. As instance, same was propagated with regard to that other great trading nation, Germany under the Nazis. What matters to Dictators / Oligarchs is power. Authoritarianism, not Democracy. Many Ukrainians apparently did not think their ‘cousins’ would attack in 2022. They forgot one particular cousin. Jonathan will speak for himself, but I do not think he in any way missed your point. As has been stated, we maintained a decent GDP for national survival, amongst others, not… Read more »
Hi Robert, this is probably one of the greatest miss calculations in the west and an illusional comfort blanket we live under…Dr Ross Babbage did years of research on this and published last year…I would read his work it’s complete ( most of the very senior figures in defence believe and endorse his work)..basically his conclusion is china has spent a good few years now hardening it’s economy and supply lines against war with the west,..it’s basically cost itself 2% of growth a year in doing this..its created new markets by selling for less profits to internal or other markets,… Read more »
that’s a good synopsis (and analysis) Jonathan. I don’t entirety concur with the Babbage view that “Xi jinping and his colleagues view the United States growing at a modest rate, losing its technological lead in several sectors, and becoming handicapped by high levels of domestic tension” In his synopsis, I’d be interested in understating if Babbage considers the pending fiscal crisis in China driven off the real estate debt bubble. Looking at economic GPD forecasts, the US seems to be having a growing economy whilst China’s GDP appears rather flat. Possibly this is partially driven off a stronger US dollar.… Read more »
The Chinese government would rather destroy the world economy and lock down the entire Chinese population with millions of Chinese starving to death than lose power!
So fingers crossed the Chinese bubble doesn’t burst anytime soon!
they soon lifted the lockdown when people appeared on streets protesting
I don’t buy that Robert. I think China only needs Western income to keep fueling it’s preparation for war. We are foolhardy to not think the possible could happen. The UK like all the other western nations can prevent a conflict with China just by being prepared. Make China think we can and will fight and have the capacity to endure attritional loses to ensure our victory. Ergo an urgent rearmament programme is needed. If the European NATO nations could field 100+ first class escort warships, 40+ submarines and 6-7 aircraft carriers as a fleet they could deploy to the… Read more »
Aukus sub, not August. Apologise. Darn autocorrection.
Hi mr Bell, the problem for the USN is that it will be reacting into a battle space prepared by china..so USN losses are going to be significant. The fight will be in stages and china has the home advantage over the US. US forces in the western pacific are essentially crowded into a small number of bases all within range of Chinese theatre based missiles..Chinese forces are scattered across the whole theatre..this means in any operation involving strategic surprise US forces in the western pacific will be vulnerable. Also that vast bulk of the the USN is not in… Read more »
Hello Robert
On a geo political note (based on my observation living here in the Antipodes), AUKUS ( or aversion thereof) may well expand to include Japan, Korea, NZ and possibly Singapore and India . That’s a massive head ache for China . A potential war on it’s Western border with India and the combined navies/air force on their Eastern front.
I cannot disagree with this oviously heartfelt & frustration-born assessment, Jonathan. Very well summarised in the last paragraph regarding the current major responsibilities of our western elected representatives. You can practically feel the mock bravado – even fear – lurking behind their public visage. ‘The public are not interested’ is the fallback clause / political comfort blanket, as far as our own politicians are concerned, to date this century. But apply the same facial exam to the various interviewers questioning current & previous politicians / experts, and you’ll note they seem very well aware of what’s ‘potentially’ at stake, regardless… Read more »
It’s interesting. I’m of view it’s not for the Public to be interested….that’s the job of govt and MOD, those who the public rely upon to take a medium to long-term view of what safeguarding the country requires.
Hi Pete and that is why china thinks it can win…as 1.4 billion Chinese all think it’s their joint responsibly to make the Middle Kingdom great again and support the CCP against the west… It’s funny most people don’t even realise that china has for the last decade had a “china” first policy ( before trumps America first) that the population have swallowed hook line and sinker. The population of china are vastly interested in the destiny of the Middle Kingdom to become preeminent and that defeating “the great enemy” yes the Chinese call the US and the west “the… Read more »
Yes, would seem an adequate response, Pete (tofya)
“Just another target” I think the saying was?
This time for the USN.
Good point, unless the Chinese get air defence and ASW to Western level very, very quickly these are going to be toast. The new Type 054B frigates appear to be ASuW focused, with no mention made on Naval News of any new sonar or torpedoes. I suspect a PLAN CSG would pass straight over the top of an Astute and never find out where the torpedo came from.
The problem is Daniele that china has absolutely no intention of fighting the US in a way that plays to US strengths…I would suspect this little little bag of trouble will be 8000miles away from the western pacific when china decided to kick off the next war…it also would not suprise me if it did not become a UK CBG issue. ( for reasons below ) I suspect all the US carrier battle groups will end up in a future pacific theatre and this little lady is probably going to be cutting sea lanes in the western Indian Ocean (… Read more »
Thanks for that extensive scenario mate. Bloody hell, if you’re right I hope the USN/NATO have read your post!
I know you prepare for the worst as part of your job, so I hope you’re being overly pessimistic in your forecast and that reality might not be so loaded in their favour.
When are the QE2 Class Aircraft Carriers going to be fitted with an electromagnetic catapult system?
& this thread was all going sooooooo well…😄
It will be Mk41s next.
QE2 was a liner, so never!
QE2 is now a floating hotel in Dubai, with a theatre. I’d pay to see duff cabaret acts catapulted into the briney. However, I might prefer steam catapults, giving more of the heritage feel.
The short answer would be never but with the Ark Royal project, a light EMALS for launching loyal wingmen seemed to be on the cards.
If you want to feel annoyed google ‘Whatever happened to – EMCAT | Think Defence (wordpress.com)‘
Was that the UK version (GEC maybe?) that was ultimately sold to the yanks ?…
I could -as you say- look it up but tbh I cba – I looked it up once and it made me so mmmmmmaaaaaddd !
I immediately sent a strongly worded email to my MP – who was the Defence scretary at the time (time of writing the email not the time of the actiual event 😎)
I don’t get the joke. Sorry!
Let’s see if it ever does a global 7 month deployment to the far side of the world. I think we will be waiting a while. 🇬🇧
Hi Robert, the PLAN did a CBG deployment into the pacific starting in Japan and then all the way to Guam, that’s a 10,000+ I’m deployment. They basically practiced air ops next to every major western navel base in the western pacific. They have build a huge purpose build carrier facility for this ship on the east coast of Africa…they have 17 globally deployable fleet replenishment ships, 2 at 45,000 tons..10 at 25,000 tons, one 37 ton and the rest 15,000 ton vessels. They have purchased and build ports across the east and west coast of Africa, into the gulf,… Read more »
Something else that isn’t mentioned. The US, on its own, has over 5000 nuclear warheads. China has way way less than that. As what is stated in this book. It’s exactly that. A book. Our intelligence services will know exactly what is going on in that country. China simply can not pretend to not have a blue water globally deployable Navy. The West isn’t going to fall for it. And all these vessels. How many are available and operational. They have the same maintenance and refit schedules like we do. I think i will have to kindly disagree on many… Read more »
Hi Robert, unfortunately with the nuclear element there are a couple of key things to consider.. At present china has ( according to the pentagon’s assessment) 500 operational warheads…and around 1500 silos for ICBMs it has the complete triad including 6 ballistic missile submarines..its likely to have around 1000 warhead for the late 2020s when any war is likely to start… But essentially anything over 100 warheads is redundant anyway…no nation survives a strike from 100 warheads…infact if the U.S. ans china undertook an equal exchange of 500 warhead each most of humanity is going out….modem crop and black soot… Read more »
But you can’t just do global operations without a huge amount of planning and logistics. If the PLAN could send escorts or a carrier strike group to the Med or up the English Channel or sit off the coast of LA. They would. You don’t just decide to do it overnight. The military doesn’t work that way. The Chinese public are no hardened to war than we are. They are human beings at the end of the day. The Wests resolve has been tested many times over the decades. And every time , we stepped up to the plate. I… Read more »
I think the key point here is making china believe that and unfortunately our leaders have been shite at showing that…western resolve has not really been on display much over the last few years. It is after all “all about deterrent” and in the end we could not even deter an essentially milliary and industrial minnow like Russia from invading a European action….what the west needs to do is find a new steely eyed Reagan Doctrine suitable to confront and defeat china in a sub kinetic conflict ( to prevent a kinetic conflict) …we are essentially in the same place… Read more »
Morning mate. I do agree on that. The west has been to soft over the last 15 years. But I think attitudes are now changing. Interesting times ahead.
Indeed even if the U.S. wins handily any indo pacific war will be catastrophic for the world economy and kill hundred of thousands…if not millions. the only answer is either give china what it wants ( and let’s be honest feeding a dictator nations has never ended well in the past) or undertaking such a level of deterrence that the chinaese leadership is convinced the west will win…that means very serious changes to how we do supply chains, massive investment in armaments industry and ensuring all outs industry can be war proofed, engagement in political warfare across the globe and… Read more »
Is it me, or does it look like the bridge area look like it’s had a fire? Sooty.
I was going to write a long summary of where china and the west is geopolitically and the fact that all the serious assessment of china vs the west is starting to look very bad indeed…. instead I will give you all two things… Read Dr Ross Babbage’s “The next major war, can the U.S. and its allies win against china” this is a seminal piece, no one else has put together an assessment of the U.S. and china against all the domains of war a nation needs to succeed in to “win” a major war..it’s scary scary stuff and… Read more »
Why did they call him “titch”..
Because he was 5 foot tall, as in titchy…which means very small.
A 4’6″ music hall comedian of the late nineteenth century was originally billed as Little Tichborne, and later as Little Tich. Shorties have been referred to as tichy or titchy ever since.
Titch, only 4’11”, being British would have been a tankie rather than a tanker (that is a US term). He died in 2018 aged 97.
cheers graham, I thought he was 5 foot, but I will not argue with a tankie about that 😁. Cheers for the clarification. Such an interesting story…his quote was so low key yet so potent.
Thanks Jonathan. Titch is worth googling – such a character. BTW, I was REME not a tankie.
Reading earlier the Turkish P.M. Interested in a Carrier , wanting to give their navy some punch 🇹🇷
Maybe we could offer to show case him one of ours – we could sail it and the associated battle group down to Turkey and sail them through those straights to better show it all off….
Defence spending and the Tories, Labour and the Liberals since WW2 equals crap. It’s a miracle we have what we have which ain’t much. Nothing to take this beast on, that for sure.
The best response to this is already under way- AUKUS. We just have to ensure it becomes a reality. For countries with smaller populations, eg Australia or UK, the SSN is much the most effective way of countering surface navies, whose size we simply cannot match..
She was built faster than aT266
Funny how the PLAN keeps expanding to challange or surpass the USN while the RN shrinks ever further into oblivion. No wonder aggression is on the up.