From publicly available information on the Internet, one can easily ascertain the locations and formation of the US surface fleets in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Both fleets are centered around aircraft carrier groups headed by Nimitz-class nuclear-powered “supercarriers.”
The USS Nimitz, the lead ship of its class, which has been in service since 1975, and all other older aircraft carriers of the US Navy have undergone extensive capability upgrades and refits so that they are more than capable of dealing with current maritime threats. The newest carrier in the Nimitz class, the USS George H.W. Bush, has been in service for only 11 years.
This is different from former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi’s (蘇起) assertion during a discussion forum last month, when he said that the US would not come to rescue Taiwan “because its aircraft carriers are aging, costly and in a poor state of repair.”
The Gerald R. Ford-class of aircraft carriers, currently under construction, are to become the US Navy’s next generation of carriers, replacing the Nimitz-class vessels. The first of its class, the USS Gerald R. Ford, was commissioned in 2017.
The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, under development for these next-generation carriers, is to allow aircraft handlers to launch and recover aircraft much faster than a conventional steam catapult. China’s navy is reportedly struggling to achieve a breakthrough in the development of an equivalent system for its own carriers.
Are the US aircraft carriers currently in service really that old?
Whether examined from the perspective of US naval strategy and data, or from the US Navy’s operational experience, the US carriers remain unsurpassed.
Not only are they still technically superior to any other nation’s carriers, the US carriers also make an immeasurable contribution to safeguarding freedom of navigation in oceans worldwide.
Contrast this with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy: Although having in the past few years rapidly grown in size, there remains a large question mark over the actual combat ability of its untested ships.
Also, the PLA Army has gained no significant combat experience since its disastrous invasion of Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. China’s navy is even more of an unknown quantity, as it has never been tested in an external conflict.
In air, sea or on land, the US armed forces still surpass every other nation. The US military’s strength lies in the quality of its training, backed up by the latest technology, strict discipline and the democratic society on which it is based.
Ever since its aircraft carriers wiped the floor in the Pacific theater of World War II, the US has dominated the world’s waterways. Today, it is leading the way, constructing a new class of aircraft “supercarriers.”
Let there be no more baseless talk of the US carrier force being outdated and unable to counter an aggression by the PLA Navy.
Ray Song is a graduate of National Chung Cheng University’s Institute of Strategic and International Affairs.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS