If Russia wants carriers they will need to buy one from someone with better engineering skills and experience than themselves, the only options would be the humiliating choice of India or China

Russia sold three of their carriers to China and India and both countries regretted buying them, as they required billions just to rectify all of the problems they encountered. China has now built a super carrier which is not nuclear powered and has yet to complete it's sea trials because they can't get the magnetic catapult working properly. This is what happens when you copy the look of a carrier but lack 100 years of experience building and operating carriers. An American carrier is basically an air force at sea, self sufficient and able to defend itself along with it's supporting escorts to project air power anywhere in the world. Add in the fact that the US has the best carrier born aircraft and you can see why China and Russia fear them!

"do we send a warship or a tug boat" that was brutal.

I can’t for my life imagine an ex defense minister in my country, Sweden, do such a good job hosting a a webcast like this. Big thanks to the two invited experts!

Fascinating discussion - it's refreshing to see the subject matter experts allowed to speak at some length; you rarely find such in-depth talks on the 24-hour news channels.

That was extremely interesting. What an impressive discussion that was.

Kudos to the Brits putting out a program with this level of discussion!!!

Really fascinating conversation. I love the long form, in depth answers. Very interesting.

Russia still has a navy left?!😂

Did he say russia is still a great military power 😂

Excellent episode of the Superpower serie. Very very complex analysis about aircraft carrier evolution, access denial capabilities and new tech in maritime warfare.

Russia has a geography problem when it comes to their navy. They really only have four areas where they can have ports..... in the Pacific it is Vladivostok, which is the only port that is ice free year round in the pacific. In the west, there are three ports with each a fleet: The Black Sea fleet, the Baltic fleet, and the Northern fleet. The Baltic fleet is essentially cut off by Nato, and if there ever IS a conflict between Russia (and its allies) and NATO, the Baltic fleet is pretty much doomed. With Sweden and Finland now in NATO, they don't even have to send out ships to encounter the Russian Navy there, if they dare to leave the ports of St Petersburg or Kaliningrad they can literally be picked off by mobile missile systems on the Finish, Baltic states coast, and should they manage to take care of those.... the Swedish, Polish and Danish coast lines will surely make minced meat of them. (There are land based sonar systems to detect submarines, as well as sonar buoys..... and I am sure that now Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, a few more of those will be installed along their coasts..... if they didn't have them already....) And if they survive THAT..... the French, British, and US Navies will be waiting for them in the North Sea. They literally have no chance of reaching the Atlantic. The Black Sea fleet will also be doomed. They can't reach the Mediterranean without literally capturing half of Turkey, and again..... if they didn't get sunk before reaching the Bosporus Strait, they will be picked off there, or subsequently by missile systems on the Greek coast. And again if they survive that..... the Spanish, Italian, French and other navies will be waiting for them. They too, will never have a chance to leave the Mediterranean and get to the Atlantic. So the Russians really have only two ports they can operate from: Vladivostok in the east on the Pacific, and Murmansk in the North for their Northern fleet. And Murmansk is a port that is now, as of last year, dangerously close to NATO territory, and is surely one of NATO's primary targets should it ever come to a (hopefully conventional) war. It is, realistically, the only port from which Russia can reach the Atlantic relatively unchallenged. It is the port their Nuclear Submarines depart from, and can get close to the American coasts. So IF a war happens between NATO and Russia, NATO will have plans in place to utterly devastate the ports of Murmansk and the surrounding area with air strikes. They don't even have to bring any ships close, as Norway, Finland, and Sweden can utilize their air bases in the north, and planes from the USA, UK, France and other nations can be parked there within a DAY, and used to attack the Russian ports. It should also be said that the port of Murmansk is where the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier is currently locating and undergoing an overhaul and modernization. That was supposed to be finished some time in 2021 after starting in 2017..... but due to corruption, an accident in 2018, and just simply bad management..... it wasn't even nearly complete when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and with all sorts of sanctions now in place and certain materials and equipment now harder to come by..... as of 2024, it is still moored in Murmansk. Google earth shows a (2023 taken) photo of the ship with its deck dismantled and being reconstructed. At this time, and probably for the next few years..... that carrier poses no threat, and will likely be sunk by missiles should it ever come to a war. I don't know for sure of course, but I doubt the ship can even see any active service before some time in 2025 or 2026 at this point. They may try to "rush" it if NATO does go to war with Russia, but I think its pretty safe to say NATO is very much aware of where this ship is located and where it will go..... The planes it carries are SU-33s and Mig 29s.... both of which are formidable aircraft, but no match for the western F-22's and F-35's already in operation within NATO. Europe is currently home to about 300 F 35's, and with the Dutch, Danish, and Norwegion airforces being able to support the US and UK airforces operating out of the UK..... and the Fins having put in an order of 64 of them.... it is expected there will be over 500 of them within the next few years all over Europe. And that fighter is VASTLY superior to anything the Russians have. If war breaks out, I am willing to bet that on day ONE..... squadrons from all above mentioned countries will be stationed in Finland, Norway and Sweden for immediate attacks on anything that flies a Russian flag in the Arctic ocean. Vladivostok has better survivability and it is close to allies North Korea and China, so that may work in their favor. Not that the North Korean navy is all that great, but unlike Murmansk, Vladivostok can be much better protected and they will likely hold on to that port. But then, it really is of limited use..... If a war with NATO starts, and North Korea as an ally will be obliged to help...... the war will overflow to South Korea, Japan, and local US bases..... If China subsequently gets involved, there is a decent chance that the "mighty" Russian navy will fight on to live another day, and they will be able to assist in sea battles that are surely to happen between China and the USA at that point. That said, the geography isn't great for the Russians here either, because in order to reach the Pacific, they will have to get out of the Sea of Japan, which can realistically only be done on its northern side along the Russian coastline and the Strait of Tartary.... On the south it will have to go between Japan and South Korea - both of which are partners and dare I say allies of NATO, and they can just launch a barrage of land-based missiles and drones at them. There is a reason that historically, the Soviets never invested too much in big surface fleets. Their nuclear submarines were (are?) unrivalled and some of the best in the world, and that is the Naval power they were counting on, because they knew..... they would never ever outlast a sea battle with the west. It is basically already a given that if a conventional war erupts between NATO and Russia (or formerly the Soviet Union) that the "war at sea" would quickly be lost, and they would need to focus on air power and land power. Ergo, the Russian navy is really only useful in smaller conflicts, taunting during peace time, logistics in transporting troops and weapons..... but in a conflict with NATO..... they may as well not exist.

As someone who has actuality been in a war (operation Corparate) at sea, I'm dismayed at todays UK carrier force. 40 odd years ago it was clearly proven that short range jets put the carrier in to much danger having the enemy coast to close. Today the same issue exists, HMS Hermes the Falklands flagship only survived due to a huge ro-ro ship was placed between Hermes & the mainland & the Exocet missile radar locked on to Conveyer a mere 10 miles or less away, we could see her burning with eyesight.

China has a carrier that is more status than weapon, and Taiwan has already seen how to put it on the bottom!

Building aircraft carriers today is like building impressive battleships in 1950. They are yesterday's weapon for tomorrow's war.

Fascinating discussion with great depth. This went far beyond my expectations. Guests were amazing picks for the show with excellent insights. 👏👏 Will be listening to more.

Hypersonic missiles are great against stationary targets, but a lot of the same things that make them hard to shoot down makes it hard for them to hit mobile targets. The plasma generates by hypersonic speeds interferes with their sensors. Theyxd have to be fired from close by, which would make their launching platform vulnerable.

My God 😮 what a great conversation "and informative at that , great job james.

No, the Houthies failed to destroy a US carrier!

Carriers never fitted into its foreign policy, which was for the Soviet Union it didn't seek influence across the globe, but was instead focused on self defence of its Union of nations at home.

How can you guys say that china is in some kind of competition between US and Chinese aircraft carriers, china's can not even sail 1000 miles away from their country, the US can defeat the Chinese navy without even fighting it.🙃

Soon, the Russian navy will consist of one coracle, which will be in the repair shop for a patch up :)

Wow, you should bring more videos like these.

Its a while since you've been a light anything James! Great questions as usual. You, James H and Kate G are the best interviewers on TR.

Doesn't this just chime with the fact that historically Russia has been a land emprire and not really a maritime power?

American general quoted “there are two type of ship in the Navy submarines and target “

Russia is a sad little gas-station in a world thats going electric

I could actually get all of this… An outstanding discussion… Thank you

The quality of the guests and the eloquence of the discussion is top notch. The click baity title doesn't do any favor though...

Two pretty smart guys…… do enjoy this conversation……

Question...the youg generation so connected digitally,gps navigation goes out, can they read a paper map for getting around?

It's not just the carrier, there is a small fleet that has to be provisioned to sail with it. The UK has forgotten that.

Really interesting discussion to listen to. I'd like to see more of this.

Strange as it may seem, if Ukraine Russia situation has taught as one thing, with all the modern equipment and drone warfare, we have gone back to hand to hand combat in trenches. hence the flag communication and use of a Sexton.

Great video ! Question; Which countries have carriers and how many do each have ?

Great discussion, really enjoyed this, and not having to contend with armchair quarterbacks handing out poorly informed observations. As the guests allude to, its better to look at the aircraft carrier as part of a task force...sure, they are the centerpiece of most navies and their force-projection, but they never travel alone, typically with a flotilla of cruisers, destroys, attack subs, support vessels, etc...including intel and surveillance assets, in the strike group and outside of (or above) it. And if you don't have all of those components working efficiently and in place, then the carrier isnt effective, and could be just a large bullseye. Drones and hypersonic missiles are just new threats to this strike force. Many folks point to the obsolescence of battleships in these conversations...well, they did become obsolete, but the essential strike group still remained, it just had the battleship replaced with the carrier.

No mention of the Falklands, I would have thought that was a clear case in point on the projection of power. Albeit Argentina was not a formidable opponent ...

Military investment into systems is driven primarily by capability. Even if carriers are more vulnerable than in the past, until something else can supplant their role theyre not going anywhere. See: Ford class carrier.

China’s aircraft carriers don’t have any planes that can fly off of them and the arresting gear on their newest aircraft carrier isn’t fully installed and doesn’t work

It takes 3km for a Chinese aircraft carrier to make a turn, I don't think there's much of a showdown.

I think it's humorous to see the one guest (red tie) go on about China's A2AD capabilities as if they exist at all in reality. The reality is that China like Russia practice advanced Maskirovka techniques to fool people (like this guest) about the efficacy of their military capabilities. The reality is that many of these A2AD capabilities are pure hype, and would not be at all effective in a real battle scenario against an American coalition. This is being proven over and over in the Ukraine by the Russians. Their vaunted AS 400 missile defense systems are total junk, and are easily wiped out by the Ukrainians. The DF-21 missile, on a good day would have trouble hitting a stationary target 2,000k away, let alone a quickly moving, heavily defended USN carrier battle group. The guy with the red tie probably makes a decent living as an analyst, but I'd hate to have his job...

Satellite spots a carrier and relays information to the boss. Boss tells missile crew it's at this location sink it. Missile launch. Missile arrives at location and carrier has been gone for hours. 😁

Fascinating, even it there was quite a bit that I didn't understand. 😅

wars are not fought on the sea and its the submarines that are the destroyers of worlds not surface ships

This reminds me of the British sending. Repulse and Prince of Wales against the Imperial Fleet. Anyone who thinks Carriers are the answer is living in the past.

Now that NASA has sucdessfully demonstrated the first stage of rockets can be landed/recovered on a barge, the US defense dept is looking at using this technology to ship supplies to carriers anywhere on the planet in less than 60 minutes. Who would have guessed about that option. Pentagon is highly excited about this. And it would not surprise me if they have already tried landing on helicopter ships. This is a major change in warfare logistics. Technically, troops on the front line can have pizza delivered.

really interesting questions =)

This is brilliant analysis!! That it conforms with my own re: the #russians , even better. BUT ... as the age of the dreadnoughts passed to the battleship to the carrier, it has now passed to the Age of the Missile. For all of the advantages, protections, and projection, it only takes one JH-15, or heavyweight Russkie missile to take that asset out of play, if not sink it. It absolutely applies to more geographically limited battle spaces as it does to the wide open Pacific or Indian Oceans; witness the US wariness of Iranian and Houthi anti-ship shore batteries. The Age of the Missile is here. Ships are being designed as SAM banks (the Russian Gorshkov class is outstanding, as is the Chinese Type-55 destroyer, both superior to the US AEGIS ships, Tico and Arleigh Burke classes) instead of the Kirov class of Russian battlecruisers, which were dedicated carrier-killers, and are being brought back on a modern footing. The US has 11 supercarriers; that's more than enough. For every new one, the oldest, least capable should be decommissioned. That single act would not only decrease the bloated DoD budget, but also reduce strain on recruitment, retention, and training by moving personnel from an old to a similar new platform.

I surely hope at least some of the US's new more advanced autonomous AI strike force air craft carriers have the ability to dive deep below the surface, same as a submarine. It's the only way to avoid the majority of their current detection capabilities at this time.

That was well done. The longest road on Earth is the ocean, and it has no road signs.. moving target.. vs, a sitting duck How much tec can effect something like the hms missouri.. "Let's lay some lead on those FM's" 16" shells

The reality is that for the Chinese carriers to survive in a conflict with the US they will have to stay in port under cover. The moment they move out into the Asian littoral or Indo-Pacific oceans, their life-expectancy will be less than 24 hours. B-1B, B52 and P-8A will be more than capable of sinking those carriers long before US carriers can do a thing. Same applies for USN SSNs. Not to mention an 1,800 km or 2,750 km range US army hypersonic weapon. The PLAN carriers will simply stay in port, and/or be sunk in port. Although it's possible they think they have a chance, and get ordered to leave port anyway. They will be sunk. Weeks before US carriers arrive in the region from the US West coast. Yup, the Pacific really is that big.

Superb discussion, more of the same please

Thank you.

Excellent interview and guests.

Oh please, the floating casinos? Come on, don't be completely ridiculous, China doesn't really have carriers and you damned well know it.

This is preposterous. The Chinese are in no way able to field carriers further than 1000km from their mainland. That's why none of the existing two hasn't gone anywhere.

Tungsten rod from space gap. You ready yet Putie?

Great information...good ...people

Exceptional Interview informative relevant innovative wise

missiles and drones...drones and missiles...that seems to be the future especially in regard to surface vessels...but what happens when those control networks are disrupted?...which is likely in a major power confrontation....

Some say the Imperial Japanese navy made a mistake in using their attack submarine fleet on resupply missions when they could have been better used to attack allied shipping. When you have an attack platform like an aircraft carrier shouldn't it be attacking rather than defending?

China has two "aircraft carriers"... One is a converted casino boat, the other is a copy of it. I think they may have a third on the way. All run on Diesel. The United States has something like 12 nuclear powered super carriers. Each of which is stronger than the full airforce of all but 3 or 4 countries, all of which are our allies (minus Russia). We also have something like 12 other carriers which are of the smaller variety or designed specifically to transport helicopters. If the United States falls, it will do so from within as is the case with most great empires. A distinct possibility, but lets not over sell China's navy. It has ZERO chance against ours. Especially when you consider the fact that the other great navys (Japan, UK, France) are on our side.

Convenient no one mentioned hi tech torpedoes....................

Every single time the question of "Is X weapon system obsolete?" The very next questions you should ask are "Do we still need it?" and "What can replace it?" If the answers to those questions are "Yes." and "Nothing.", then no, they're not obsolete.

35:00 how would that drone fleet fare in the EM soup that is currently blanketing Eastern Ukraine?

The Battle of Ukraine is a land activity, especially since the Black Sea Fleet is sunk. Aircraft carriers are critical in sea control, and are demonstrating that capability by protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea. Furthermore, should hostilities with China begin, aircraft carriers could quickly close the entire Indian Ocean to Chinese oil tankers and merchant shipping. This is in addition to strike capabilities in a South China Sea engagement. Speaking of the South China Sea, hostilities there would begin with massive cruise missile strikes against Chinese military capabilities on the mainland and Spratly Islands, at which point the submarines and surface ships are off-line for replenishment. Meanwhile aircraft carriers can be flexibly retasked in real-time.

Ask Japan what happens when you mess with American ships!!

Just because you own a Ferrari, it doesn't mean you're skilled enough to race it professionally. That's even more true for an aircraft carrier. NO ONE can utilize a carrier force like the US and it's not even close! Yes, the Chinese have built up their carrier force, BUT THEY'VE NEVER FOUGHT WITH ONE in a single conflict! The British are operationally the 2nd best practitioners of aircraft carrier warfare, but they currently don't have a functional carrier. (They should be ashamed.) If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything; it's the fact that numerical superiority doesn't mean victory on the battlefield. Proper coordination of all military assets is critical to successful warfighting and all preconcieved notions of "theoretical abilities" quickly go out the window when the shooting starts and the rubber is forced to meet the road!

Oh its MIA heappofcrap. Where was he when he was an MP.

Australia used to have a modest Carrier capability but a lack of investment in Defence over a prolonged period and the blatant disinterest by politicians of both the left and the right have left us with a couple of helicopter carriers with limited utility. Our current government is beating its chest about a plan to acquire a nuclear powered submarine capability and to double its surface fleet but all that is 20 years away because it is not spending one extra dollar now - and ‘kicking the can down the road’ financially. Bloody useless politicians - particularly Labor.

He DROVE a carrier???

Ah Russia, where your Navy can be defeated by a country without a navy.

Times Radio talk about absolutely wrong on every aspect in Ukraine

A NEW NEUTRAL PARADIGM 010

If only Russian kit was as good as their uniforms.

No mention that the royal navy's aircraft carriers are always under repair besides only one can be deployed at a time

A fixed airbase is hard to completely knock out. It can take more hits than any ship. Would you prefer to be on a ship that took a hit or an airbase that took a hit with the same ammount of weapons.

These so call experts also predicted Ukraine would bend the knee to Russia in one week😂, I take everything these experts say with a mountain of salt, cuz they get a lot of things wrong

I still say us got to show put in that there is not afraid of him that's why he do what he do

Be fighting with sticks and stones..

Don't disagree with the utility of Carriers but they need sufficient airplanes to make them effective and self defence systems to make them survivable Ours have neither

Carriers are NOT for “near peer” adversaries. The U.S. is the only country who can employ carriers against China or Russia. No one can employ carriers against the U.S. France and UK can not use their carriers against China or Russia, or even against each other. India MIGHT be able to deny China access to the Indian seas, with their carriers…maybe. And only with US assistance. Power projection is ONLY to very weak adversaries, for all by the U.S., and all other nations can ONLY use their carriers is the U.S. allows them to.

Russia may be able to project it's navy far better when the artic becomes ice free in 2014, as predicted by Al Gore quoting NASA research.

For the next vid just don't put background music over the people talking please... its not even the same volume all the time gets loud then quite then loud again... why? video editor why?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

James really likes himself talking.

Showdown? Really?

The claim in the title is basically tripe. China can, possibly, put a single carrier group to sea. The USA, on its own, fields more than TEN super carriers. Russia WAS “…a superpower…” It is not one today, except for its possession of nuclear weapons.

China does not even have a blue water navy

The russians looks like turks on the XVI century. When they faced portuguese, just 500 were enough to defeat 25000 turks... And enabling rhe indian ocean control for 100 years. 😂

34:53 also bare in mind how many multi million dollar failures elon had getting to where he is now if that was public funding he’d have had his funding pulled long before he got a successful run

slava ukraini

Russia always tried the US on who is better

RUSSIA GREAT MILITARY LOL. HE LOST ME AT THAT COMMENT.

Honestly as soon as laser missile defence becomes a real thing protecting aircraft carriers will be super easy, and you could say well if we have lasers that can take down missiles we could have lasers to take down ships... which no missiles need to be light so they are very lightly armoured hence why it's feasible that laser weaponry could defeat them a single MW beam could take down a missile. To take down a ship your talking 100s of megawatt just to make a small hole which wouldn't bring down a ship realistically you need gigawatt or greater beams and thats just the thermal energy of the beam, not the amount of electricity you would need which would be 5 or so Gigawatts so you using like largish power stations for just 1 weapon, it's just stupidly impracticable without some massive change in energy generation. Also the obvious counter to drones is anti-drone drones so I don't see them being a big problem after we have 5 - 10 years to develop countermeasures.

Hyper sonic ?? so why are the chinese still building carriers , serious it real hard to detect , target and then hit a small moving object at long range in a vast open space of water , in the meanwhile even if the Russians managed to get a carrier operational again, they have lost decades of carrier borne operators !

There is no comparison the US has 11 supers everyone else does not have 11. Hypersonics are not a big deal look you got these guys talking about carriers like they know. Lol

He says it is absolutely wrong aircraft carrier s ate safe. Isn’t that what they said about battleship some of which are sitting on the ocean floor. Just review how easy it was to sink aircraft carriers in WWII once they were located and there were forces available to bring force to bear against them. The world is different if he thinks the aircraft carries are safe is no different than experts in the past on any subject to make claims that would be proven false.

You can tell the guy sat with the presenter doesn't really like America and also be used to many but words to say simple things

Aircraft carriers are outdated in modern warfare. What is happening to amored carriers and tanks will happen to aircrafts carriers in a modern war. Undersea drones and submarines will sink every aircraft carrier in the first week of war