Why though? China's building drone carriers instead. Taking down aircraft carriers is of course no simple matter, but hardly infeasible for a super power. The problem with capital ships is that they're just as expensive to replace as they are to build. Also, blowing one up eliminates 9% of the US' AC fleet at a stroke, which would be a big psychological blow. I don't think China is as emotionally invested in its aircraft carriers and built them primarily to show that they could. That said, in any military conflict with China an opponent would be well advised to target their nearest aircraft carrier as early and powerfully as possible for the humiliation factor.

> Why though?

I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed.

Honestly (and unfortunately) if anyone actually did destroy a US aircraft carrier, the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.

>I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world.

Why? ICBMs are good enough and much cheaper. Also, launching missiles from submarines can be very effective.

> the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.

The thing is, not many things in the world cost more than an aircraft carrier. What's you're going to blow up? Also, how, short of strategic nuclear war.

Quite. It's hard to see retaliation against a civilian target in a direct response to a military loss, and if an aircraft carrier is sunk in theater there might not be sufficient capacity to respond immediately against military targets.

Everyone gave up on putting nukes on planes: too vulnerable, and quite capable of crashing on their own during routine operations. They're all on ICBMs.

France does carry their tactical nukes on the Rafale.

This assumes US has air superiority within 1-2 island chain and carriers are survivable in a peer war. PRC has 230x US ship building capacity and is trickling carriers because it's nice to have peace time presence/coercisve capability, but they're not betting the farm on it. They're barely betting on it at all. For reference US was dropping a big displacement carrier every year/other year post WW2. Scale that to PRC ship building capacity and they can do 2-3 a year, but instead did 2.5 in 15 years. They're deliberately not playing the carrier game. PLAN only still have 60 J15s for 2 carriers (3rd doing trials). Thats a profound lack of urgency if that's a capability they really cared about. PRC is doubling down on missiles to sink carriers and hit US regional aviation basing. They're likely assuming entire PRC / PLAN fleet going to be sunk, but also they can sink entire USN. Then it's a matter of who can play attrition and reconstitution game the fastest, that's where 230x ship building capacity comes in play. T+1-2 years AFTER war, they're betting they can spit out a fresh new navy and US can't. They're hoping that prospect deters US because US needs her navy for global hegemony and security commitments and PRC doesn't. Realistically the only threat to PRC global shipping is US doing a blockade, hence they aim to sink USN anywhere in the world by pursing conventional global strike, and third world pirates that posting some security on merchant ships can deal with.

What China is really after is slowly pushing out and slowly increase its control in seas around China and its neighborhood. While slowly pushing out and giving itself more options.

China is playing the slow game and they will continue to play it for a long time to come. But of course the slow game also has lots of issues for them as well. Issues with their population, with India, with the regime and so on.

China is in a position not that different from Germany pre-WW1, but arguably even better. But unlike Germany they are not controlled by complete war glorifying idiots. China believes the future is going their way, unlike the Germans who basically believe they would lose out in the long term. They don't have a insane collapsing Austro-Hungary as an ally constantly dragging them into conflict. And nuclear weapons exist.

Third is in sea trial and fourth under construction. Also, China doesn't pretend to be global police, so it needs them only in South China sea, while US need to be present in Middle East, Europe and USA also.

That great, so the US, which produces all the oil it needs within its borders, needs to be present in the Middle East, but China, which produces some oil, but not enough to run its current fleet of cars and trucks, let alone fight a war, does not need to be in the Middle East. Interesting analysis :)

Note that Russia's oil does not help China here: the infrastructure in Russia only allows export via European ports, not Asian ports and not over the Russia-China border, though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough.

PRC extracts ~4 million barrels per day, they're a continental sized land power with resources, not JP. IIRC US military consumes 90 million barrels per year / 240k barrels per day. PRC domestic consumption is 14m barrels per day. ~6m goes to transportation, 2m goes to heating, both in process of being electrified. 2m goes to other. Industry, uses ~4m barrels, of which PRC MIC uses relatively little as % of output relative to behemoth that is entire PRC manufacturing/industry. TLDR short/medium term, they can ration transportation, focus industry on MIC, and sustain military multiple times their current size on wartime economy, indefinitly. Medium/long term with rapid electrification and some RU piplines they can operate normally. There's also estimated 300m barrels and growing in strategic reserves. And that's assuming US blockades PRC MENA oil, in which case US refineries on CONUS probably going boom. It doesn't matter how much oil you have in the ground if you can't protect your extraction infra. Entire PRC Malacca dilemma assumes US can choke PRC SLOC unilaterally with little consequence to herself, the calculus changes when CONUS serenity is on the line, which looks like PRC end game when they indicated they're pursuing conventional global strike program a few years ago.

US isn't in Middle East to protect their oil sources in case of war. US is in Middle East to control oil prices, do policing, help Israel and threat Iran and other regional actors.

I believe Russia and China signed agreements for building gas and oil pipes.

I agree with your "control oil prices" only if it means making sure Iran or some other country does not close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers.

> though with the construction of a few 5,000-km-long pipelines, I guess that could change in a few years if Russia cares enough

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_gas_pipeline

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-says-oil-pipel...

Interesting. From the second link: "Russia currently sends gas to China through the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline, which began operating in 2019 and runs through eastern Siberia into northeast China. Experts say that as China is not expected to need additional gas supply until after 2030, Beijing could drive a hard bargain on price for a second pipeline via Siberia."

Ummm, who's going to make sure all the oil comes from the middle east? It's not like the US needs to import light sweet crude from there since the refineries are made for heavier oil than comes from Saudi or fracking.