Comments by "Yo2" (@yo2trader539) on "China Observer" channel.

  1. 538
  2. 146
  3. 44
  4. 23
  5. 20
  6. 17
  7. 15
  8. 15
  9. 14
  10. 7
  11. 6
  12. 6
  13. 6
  14. 5
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. I would caution against that view. During a previous Taiwan missile crisis, the US carrier battle group deployed near Taiwan "lost" a Chinese submarine, and they had to pull back a few hundred nautical miles for safety. It's pointless to compare and contrast specs of individual submarines, destroyers, carriers, or fighter jets...because they're used together to cover each others weaknesses. China doesn't need a 100 years, nor does it actually need aircraft carriers. They can launch their strikes from air bases, exactly like the saturated anti-ship missile attacks from fighter-bombers that Soviet Union planned. After all, it was why the Aegis platform was developed in the 1970s and 1980s. The war in Ukraine does offer a glimpse to the future. US$1,000-2,000 modified commercial drones are destroying latest tanks and IFV that cost a few million dollars. Iranian drones that cost US$100,000-200,000 per unit are taking out entire electric grids. If Ukraine can use sea-drones to damage the Crimean/Kerch Bridge, imagine what China can do. USS Cole was a manned attack in Yemen. Nowadays, a remotely controlled or pre-programmed unmanned sea-drone will suffice. In fact, what's the point of an aircraft carrier if the future were to be unmanned drone warfare? The concept of an aircraft carrier was to be a mobile airbase to project power far from your homeland. If you have the ability to launch hundreds, if not thousands of stealth drones from your homeland, you wouldn't need a mobile airbase.
    3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1