--- title: "USA v Russia v China: Aircraft Carrier Showdown - Comparing the World's Most Powerful Warships" description: "Ah, the not-so-humble aircraft carrier. Flung into the spotlight as a force multiplier during World War Two, it's now been over eighty years since we first saw these incredible marvels of engineering in action. But nowadays they're bigger and better than ever. Countries across the world seek to challenge the US's might, and they have carriers of their own. Of all nations on earth, two are bigger rivals of the US than any other.\n\nRussia and China.\n\nSo, when it comes to aircraft carriers, what are each of these three nations bringing to the table? Who comes out on top? And just what are the best of the best really capable of?\n\n## What is an Aircraft Carrier For?\n\nSo, before we get into comparing carriers, we have to understand what it is an aircraft carrier actually does. It's no good comparing the major carriers on how good they'd be at an amphibious landing for example, because that's not what they're for.\n\nAn aircraft carrier is a natural extension of a nation's air force and navy. They allow nations to project their power far beyond their own borders through the use of aircraft, using the floating airstrip as a base. This is useful for defending allies, conducting strikes against enemies, enforcing no fly zones, and dominating sea lanes. They also provide important reconnaissance, humanitarian relief and strategic influence. As such there are several characteristics that are the most important when comparing carriers seeking to achieve their goals.\n\nAnd that brings us to our first comparison, sheer numbers. The USA currently has 11 aircraft carriers in its navy, and they are; the USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the newest of the lot, the Gerald R. Ford, which represents a class upgrade. Fancy.\n\nBy comparison China has four. The Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian, and a mysterious fourth carrier about which most details currently aren't known. And Russia, only has one, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is actually classified as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, but it's the best they have. Russia used to have more, but one of its other carriers, known as the Gorkshov, was sold to India in 2004 and renamed, whilst another Soviet era carrier named Varyag actually became the Chinese Liaoning, after the hull was sold in 1998 by, and the irony here is quite humorous, Ukraine.\n\nSo clearly, in terms of number of carriers the US is out in front. Quantity has a quality all its own, just ask the Russian army, and more carriers means more planes in the sky, which means a greater operational capability.\n\nNow, if we compared every single carrier on this list to each other we would be here forever. But you don't want to hear about how the 8th best US aircraft carrier stacks up against the 3rd best Chinese one, you want the best of the best. So that's what we're going to do. We're going to compare the Ford as the newest carrier from the US, against the Fujian from China, against the Kuznetsov. Why the Fujian and not the mysterious fourth carrier? Well, considering nobody really knows anything about it, this video would be very boring if I was shrugging my shoulders at the camera for twenty minutes. So, the Fujian as a very new carrier itself will do just fine.\n\nNow the last thing before we get into the technical stuff is there are things we cannot account for in our comparisons. Operational readiness, capability of troops, and the level of maintenance that these carriers kept at just to name a few. We won't be able to account for how the carriers are run day-to-day because it's too much of an unknown quantity. Sure, the Kuznetsov might have picked up a nasty smoking habit and the Russian Navy might be putting poorly maintained ships into service, just ask the Moskva at the bottom of the Black sea, but there's no way to know in a future combat situation if these kinds of issues could be resolved. So, we're just focusing on the technical stuff, numbers, loud noises, the things you're here for. We're assuming in this hypothetical comparison that all ships are running at 100%. Ready? Let's begin with everyone's favourite category. Size.\n\n## Size Matters\n\nNow, why does it matter how big an aircraft carrier really is? Well, it's because an aircraft carrier's size is directly linked to its capabilities. For example, a larger vessel will be able to hold more and larger aircraft, increasing their combat effectiveness. It allows for more space below deck, which makes take-off and landing cycles more efficient and safer. Larger carriers carry more fuel, more ammunition, more food, more spare parts, more everything, which means they can operate longer without needing to be resupplied. It's more flexible for fulfilling multiple roles while more compartments and thicker armour means greater survivability.\n\nHowever, that does come at a massive financial and logistical cost, as well as painting a target on the biggest ship's backs, but the benefits for a wealthy country outweigh these drawbacks pretty easily.\n\nSo how do our ships stack up? Well, the gold standard for a supercarrier is the Gerald R. Ford, you can always trust the Americans to \"go big\" … it's the \"going home\" they struggle with. The Ford is 333 metres long from bow to stern, and the flight deck is 78 metres wide, perfect for the modern generations of aircraft that need to be housed on the ship. Overall, the Ford displaces 100,000 tonnes of water, making it the largest warship ever assembled.\n\nNext, comes the Fujian and this relatively new Chinese carrier is no slouch when it comes to size either. Now any information about Chinese military specs is pretty spotty because Beijing aren't the biggest fans of giving their fleet information away. But from what we could find, the Fujian is believed to be about 320 metres long, and 73 metres wide, hardly a massive difference to the Ford, although this does technically make it more comparable to the Kitty Hawk class of carrier the US developed in the 1960s. As a slightly shorter and narrow craft, the Fujian displaces in the range of 80,000-85,000 tonnes of water at full load.\n\nThe Kuznetsov is a little smaller still, at around 305 metres long and 72.3 metres wide, displacing around 58,000 tonnes at full load.\n\nNow the size of the carriers are obviously about right for what each country is aiming to achieve militarily, but in a scuffle, the Ford would have much greater capability owed to its higher capacity. But just how much more capacity does it really have? It's only a little bigger than the Fujian after all.\n\nWell let's find out.\n\n## Capacity and Aircraft\n\nNow as you can imagine, because the Ford is the biggest, it also has the highest capacity. Sitting at between 75-90 aircraft that it can hold at any one time. Remember, the biggest air force in the world is the US Airforce. The second biggest air force in the world… is the US Navy, so those aircraft are numerous, advanced and pretty lethal. The Ford can carry the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-18 and its variants, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, the MH-60R/S helicopters, as well as a million different kinds of drones. Using all these aircraft, the Ford can fly up to 160 sorties a day and it's reported that number could rise as high as 220 per day in a crisis.\n\nThe Fujian can allegedly hold up to 70 aircraft at any one time which would render the number of sorties that it could fly daily as a little lower than the Ford. But those planes are still no joke, as they will likely include the most modern generations of Chinese jets including the J-20, the J-10, the J-15, and maybe even the FC-31, the Chinese answer to the F-35. Additionally, they have multiple Russian airframes co-opted into the PLAAF like the Sukhoi Su-30, Su-35, and Su-27. And if that wasn't enough, much like the Ford it can also carry rotary-wing aircraft.\n\nSo how does the older Kuznetsov stack up? Because the Kuznetsov isn't a full carrier, it's aircraft capacity is a fair sight lower than the other two, it's believed to carry between 33-50 aircraft at a time, including the Su-27, potentially the Su-33, the Yakovlev Yak-41M, as well as the Kamov Ka-27 chopper and its variants. It seems to have more of a balance between rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft, as opposed to the other two which are overwhelmingly fixed wing based. There's no real way to say which carrier comes out on top here, but considering the strength of US airframes and the increased capacity, I'm backing Uncle Sam.\n\n## Propulsion and Engines\n\nBut you can have all the aircraft and the most displacement in the game, if you can't power the thing, all you have is a big floating aircraft carrier-shaped island vulnerable to attack. Propulsion is crucial for aircraft carriers, sure, it's what stops them being sitting ducks in the water, but it also helps tell us how often the carriers will need to be refuelled and therefore how often they're actually available to do all the things they're advertised to do.\n\nThe Ford once again, is the gold standard. It has an advanced nuclear propulsion system with two reactors, four shafts, and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the carrier, which gives its systems a 150% increase in electrical power over previous classes. And on top of that, it can travel at a speed of 30 knots, or 35mph. For a ship that displaces 100,000 tonnes of water, that might as well be an F1 car. And because it is fuelled by nuclear power, it doesn't need to be refuelled for DECADES at a time, which is useful for a carrier with a shelf-life of half a century. It means that it almost never needs to return to port for refuelling, only for resupply, meaning it can spend as much time on the open ocean as it needs to with a basically unlimited range.\n\nThe Fujian is no slouch either, being able to get up the same speed as the Ford, but it is believed to be powered by a gas and diesel drive and an integrated electric propulsion system. This means it needs refuelling much more often and this will also affect the range at which it can sail at its highest speed. However, research indicates that their new secret carrier may well be nuclear powered.\n\nAnd then there's the Kuznetsov, with a top speed of 29 knots, and conventionally powered with eight boilers and steam turbines, which each produce 50,000 break horse power, it's pretty old school. But it's speed and range when combined is where it drops off. The Kuznetsov can only travel a little over 6,000 kilometres at its top speed before it needs refuelling. Its top range is 13,000 kilometres but at half speed, meaning it could get all the way from its current dock in Murmansk, all the way to the US East coast if it wanted to, but it wouldn't be able to get back again.\n\nBut it's more conventional system does in theory mean the Kuznetsov is able to have several boilers falling redundant due to damage without stopping the vessel altogether, which might not be the case for something like the Ford if both nuclear reactors were damaged. So, there is something going for it.\n\nAll three ships actually have a very similar top speed and that's no doubt important in a combat scenario, but when it comes to a mix of endurance and range, the Ford is far and away superior.\n\n## Launch and Recovery Systems\n\nOk so we've learned a lot about the carriers so far, but one of the most important characteristics of an aircraft carrier is the launch and recovery systems for the aircraft. How good that is impacts all sorts of things like combat readiness and stress on the aircraft. So, what are the specifications for launch and recovery among our three carriers?\n\nThe Ford has a state-of-the-art Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or EMALS for short. This replaces the classic steam catapults that are used to fire the aircraft off the carrier like you've probably seen in Top Gun. The EMALS uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor, and yes, that does basically mean that the US now fires its aircraft out of a railgun. But it's not just the cool factor that makes this a better system, it can be better controlled, so that every time, based on the weight of the craft and its equipment, it can be launched with the exact power required, which ensures as little undue stress is put on the aircraft as possible. Drones, for example, simply don't need to be launched as fast as an F-35, so why would you?\n\nAs for recovery, it also sports a new system known as the AAG, or advanced arresting gear, which works to create a similar result in reverse. It's a turbo electric system designed for deceleration using arresting cables, like most carriers do. But this system allows for aircraft to be slowed down based on their relative weight and speed, which will put less stress on them and in theory mean less rigorous maintenance.\n\nThe Fujian is actually right up to speed on this one. It has catapults similar to other aircraft carriers, but these are electromagnetically assisted, considering that both the Liaoning and Shandong have the old style \"ski jump\" launch system, this means they have skipped a generation of tech entirely with the steam pistons that are common on Nimitz class US carriers. It's also believed that the Fujian has electromagnetic arresting capabilities similar to the Ford, but not much more is known.\n\nSo, the Ford has the EMALS and AAG, the Fujian has a hybrid launch system, what about the Kuznetsov? Well, the Liaoning, has the ski jump and as it was a former Soviet vessel, and the Kuznetsov is much the same. It has a 12-degree ramp known as a \"short take-off, barrier-arrested recovery\" (or STOBAR) system. But this can slightly limit the kinds of aircraft that can be utilised, as well as their range and payload. No heavy aircraft can be used on a STOBAR system, and it lowers the sortie rate, and you have to pay closer attention to wind conditions on the deck before launching. As for recovery, it's the standard arrestor wires that work with a mechanical system rather than any kind of electrical technology. This kind of tech gap is to be expected though considering the Kuznetsov is an older carrier than both the Ford and Fujian, both of which blow the Kuznetsov out of the water in this regard.\n\n## Offence and Defence\n\nNow, after all of that, you'd be thinking \"surely Simon there's nothing left to compare\" – but there is. After all, these carriers can't rely on aircraft alone for their offensive and defensive capabilities. If they did, one well-placed missile on the flight deck would wreak havoc and leave them defenceless. So how do our carriers compare when it comes to striking targets and avoiding getting hit themselves?\n\nFor the Ford, it's best offence is a good defence, if it can stop itself being hit, it can operate at its maximum capacity, flinging planes out to deliver hundreds of kilos of freedom courtesy of Uncle Sam. And its planes and supporting ships would do a better job defending the carrier than the carrier likely could by itself anyway.\n\nTo accomplish this defensive mastery, the Ford has a dual-band radar system. The X-band radar excels in high-resolution tracking, making it ideal for targeting and fire control. The S-band radar, on the other hand, provides long-range surveillance and early warning. Combining these two capabilities allows the Ford to efficiently manage multiple threats at the same time, including airborne aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, all with one system. And the radar being smaller means the island, the bit that sticks up on an aircraft carrier, can be smaller, allowing for even more space for aircraft. Additionally, it has electronic warfare capabilities and a stealthy design to reduce its own cross section on enemy radar. But it is still an aircraft carrier, it's basically a floating airport.\n\nAs for the stuff that goes boom? The Ford has plenty to protect itself. It has two Sea Sparrow missile launchers which can defend it against medium-range missiles, anti-ship missiles, and aircraft. It has two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers to defend against threats like cruise missiles and drones at close range. For guns it has three PHALANX Close in Weapons System (CIWS) that can fire 4,500 rounds per minute to destroy nearby threats that the missiles miss. And then it has four M2 12.7mm machine guns to wrap up small threats like small drones and fast attack craft.\n\nFactor in the aircraft which also have torpedoes and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare, the mass of aircraft swarming it in general, and it's supporting ships? You're not anywhere getting near this thing, not without finding out why the US doesn't have free healthcare at least.\n\nThe Fujian has an impressive arsenal all its own. Whilst we don't know the specifics, we know that the Fujian has an advanced radar array capable of identifying maritime as well as airborne threats. The ship's command and control systems are believed to incorporate artificial intelligence and data fusion technologies, further streamlining the decision-making process in combat scenarios. We also know it has electronic warfare capability, as well as the potential for directed energy or even acoustic weaponry. It's sea trials indicate four Type 730 CIWS systems in total that are similar to the US Navy's SEARAM system. These are often used on smaller ships that don't have a full RAM system like the Ford does. It also has four missile-based point defence systems. It is one of the most advanced ships of its kind when it comes to weaponry and is certainly a near-peer of the Ford.\n\nAnd this is the part where the Kuznetsov is laughed at for being older and worse, right? Well… not exactly. You might have forgotten, but the Kuznetsov isn't a full carrier. It's a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. And the \"heavy cruiser\" part means the Kuznetsov is armed to the TEETH.\n\nBut let's start with the cutesy stuff, the ship has several different kinds of radar for navigation, target acquisition, surface assessment, and for some of its missile systems, as well as sonar capable of detecting submarines and torpedoes.\n\nWhat about missiles? The first, closer range, system is known as the Klinok, whilst the Fujian and Ford have several dozen missiles each, the Klinok alone has 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, aimed at defending it against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. The Klinok's radar makes it capable of firing once every three seconds, four targets can be engaged simultaneously all within a range of 12-15 kilometres.\n\nThis ship is also equipped with a Granit anti-ship missile system with 12 launchers. This is designed mostly for ship-to-ship combat but it also has a range greater than 400 kilometres, and is capable of carrying conventional or even nuclear missiles, making it the only carrier on the list that can be ready to start an apocalypse at a moment's notice. Added to that is the Kortik CIWS system, providing a defence against incoming missiles, as well as aircraft and small sea targets.\n\nThere are also eight extra guns that use laser guidance in a combined gun and missile system. The missiles can be guided up to eight kilometres away, whilst the 30mm twin guns can fire 1,000 rounds per minute from half a kilometre to 1.5 kilometres away.\n\nNo, it's not finished. It has six 30mm anti-air guns, an entire anti-submarine system with 60 rockets designed to destroy enemy torpedoes. The system also has ten barrels capable of dropping depth charges and sea mines. Submarines can be engaged directly up to 600 metres and its full range for anti-sub warfare is three kilometres.\n\nThat is to say, getting in range of the Kuznetsov would be like getting near Omaha beach in 1944. Now of course it's huge number of armaments has some downsides. It can't launch as many planes and it's designed to see direct combat, which isn't always wise if its your only carrier. The Fujian and Ford take a different approach, letting their aircraft do the brunt of the work. It's \"catch me if you can\" versus \"come and get it\". The Kuznetsov also has so much ammunition stored on it, that if its defences could be overwhelmed, or if a fire breaks out in the magazine, the explosion could probably be seen from orbit. But that is a big if, it is clearly the most well-armed of all the carriers here and could certainly handle itself in a fight at full strength.\n\n## The Future of Aircraft Carriers\n\nWell, that was a lot of technical stuff to cover, I hope you learned something about each nation's current flagship. But now we cover maybe the most important factor of all, the future of aircraft carriers amongst our three nations.\n\nLet's start with the USA. If you thought that Washington D.C was going to stop at one new carrier, you don't know the Department of Defense. The Ford launched in 2017 but only started its first full deployment in 2023. While the USS John F. Kennedy is set to be launched this year in 2025, the second Ford class vessel. The USS Enterprise and Dorris Miller are both under construction and set to be launched in 2029 and 2032 respectively. And on top of that, the USS William J. Clinton and the USS George W. Bush have been ordered and are expected to be delivered on time in 2034 and 2036. Which means that by 2036, the US will have roughly a dozen active aircraft carriers in total, assuming over the next 11 years that the USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, and Theodore Roosevelt are all retired at the end of their 50-year service. This will see a real passing of the torch from the Nimitz class to the Ford class. The Nimitz itself is set to be retired in 2026 and a new era of US aircraft carriers fit for the modern age will be roaming the seas. So, the US is the top of the tree, and it's not going anywhere for now.\n\nThen you have China, which by 2035 plans to have a full suite of six aircraft carriers under it's employ. But by 2049, when the 100-year anniversary of the founding of the PRC is set to be celebrated, China wants to have a world class-fully integrated military, so who knows how many they could have by then. China are currently working on their fourth carrier, known internally as the Type 004, and it stands to be just as impressive if not more so than the Fujian. With China's growing military might, and their integration of things like energy weapons systems, AI, railguns and more, it will be the strongest opponent the US Navy has ever faced off against. The two may or may not directly come to blows, but with every passing year, China's capability grows, and it will soon be on par with the US in all but numbers, which is a crazy thought for a nation that didn't have any operational carriers at all until 2012.\n\nAnd then there's Russia. Bogged down with a war that's gone on three years longer than planned and having to buy weapons and equipment from North Korea and Iran. The Kuznetsov currently sits in a dock in Murmansk. For all of its capabilities when operational, Moscow just can't get the thing working, and it's been in and out of being repaired since 2018 when it was last seen bellowing smoke off the coast of the UK. It's supposed to be undergoing a total overhaul meant to take years. The Kremlin suggested it could be back in 2024, three years after it was supposed to be back already, but now in 2025 we still haven't seen it. At this stage it's unknown whether it will ever be back, at all.\n\nRussia did have a nuclear supercarrier project at least suggested by elements of the Russian government known as the Shtorm but the planning has never been approved, meaning the likelihood of it being built at this stage is slim to none. If you can't operate one old aircraft carrier without it catching fire, how in Neptune's beard are you going to build an even more complicated one in the middle of a war where you're currently short on material? The obvious answer is they can't.\n\nAnd for that reason, the Russian carrier force today is seen as something of a joke, China has already surpassed it and it's not looking back. Heck India, Japan and half of Western Europe have carriers these days, so in a sense they're all miles ahead of Moscow too. At least theirs float and the engines work.\n\nThe reality is, that aircraft carriers are symbols of strength among nations for a reason. They're incredibly hard to build, taking massive amounts of material, manpower and military might to work. Their systems are highly complex and only become more so with every new generation, as do the aircraft they use. Not every country can have one, and the USS Gerald Ford is a great example of why. Who knows what incredible technologies they'll be able to fit onto them next, one thing's for sure though, they are some of the greatest instruments of war ever constructed. And they play one hell of an orchestra.\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- The US has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers, with 11 active ships, compared to China's 4 and Russia's 1.\n- The USS Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced carrier, featuring nuclear propulsion and advanced launch/recovery systems.\n- China's Fujian carrier is technologically advanced but smaller than the Ford, with a focus on modern aircraft and integrated systems.\n- Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov is heavily armed but outdated, with limited aircraft capacity and conventional propulsion.\n- The future sees the US maintaining its lead with new Ford-class carriers, while China aims to expand its fleet to six by 2035.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### How many aircraft carriers does the USA have?\n\nThe USA currently has 11 aircraft carriers in its navy.\n\n### What are the names of the US aircraft carriers?\n\nThe USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the Gerald R. Ford.\n\n### How many aircraft carriers does China have?\n\nChina has four aircraft carriers: the Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian, and a mysterious fourth carrier.\n\n### What is the name of Russia's only aircraft carrier?\n\nRussia has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is classified as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.\n\n### What is the primary purpose of an aircraft carrier?\n\nAn aircraft carrier is a natural extension of a nation’s air force and navy. They allow nations to project their power far beyond their own borders through the use of aircraft, using the floating airstrip as a base.\n\n### What are the key characteristics that determine the capabilities of an aircraft carrier?\n\nKey characteristics include size, capacity and type of aircraft, propulsion and engines, launch and recovery systems, and offensive and defensive capabilities.\n\n### What is the size of the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier?\n\nThe Gerald R. Ford is 333 metres long from bow to stern, and the flight deck is 78 metres wide. It displaces 100,000 tonnes of water.\n\n### What type of propulsion system does the Gerald R. Ford use?\n\nThe Gerald R. Ford has an advanced nuclear propulsion system with two reactors, four shafts, and a zonal electrical power distribution system.\n\n### What is the launch and recovery system used on the Gerald R. Ford?\n\nThe Gerald R. Ford uses an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for launching aircraft and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for recovery.\n\n### What are the future plans for the US aircraft carrier fleet?\n\nThe US plans to launch several new Ford-class aircraft carriers by 2036, including the USS John F. Kennedy, USS Enterprise, Dorris Miller, USS William J. Clinton, and the USS George W. Bush.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original MegaProjects video: USA v Russia v China: Aircraft Carrier Showdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcuGCc-IA8)\n- [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/INS_Trikand_%28F51%29-image10.jpg) by This image photographed by Brian Burnell with permission was uploaded to Commons by George Hutchinson.To see his entire portfolio, click here. Permission to upload photographs by Brian Burnell is archived in the OTRS system as shown below each image. This image is protected by copyright! If you would like to use it outside Wikipedia, please read THIS first. The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Attribution / openverse, by-sa.\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://megaprojects.pub/article/usa-russia-china-aircraft-carrier-showdown.md canonical: https://megaprojects.pub/article/usa-russia-china-aircraft-carrier-showdown datePublished: 2026-07-02 dateModified: 2026-07-02 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://megaprojects.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: MegaProjects image: "https://media.megaprojects.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,height=338,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/YqcuGCc-IA8/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: 4cd688061ee4ab04be10ea23a92ae2f46a8c007fa1008e00829e680be5116529 tokens: 7137 summaryUrl: https://megaprojects.pub/article/usa-russia-china-aircraft-carrier-showdown.md.summary.md --- Ah, the not-so-humble aircraft carrier. Flung into the spotlight as a force multiplier during World War Two, it's now been over eighty years since we first saw these incredible marvels of engineering in action. But nowadays they're bigger and better than ever. Countries across the world seek to challenge the US's might, and they have carriers of their own. Of all nations on earth, two are bigger rivals of the US than any other. Russia and China. So, when it comes to aircraft carriers, what are each of these three nations bringing to the table? Who comes out on top? And just what are the best of the best really capable of? ## What is an Aircraft Carrier For? So, before we get into comparing carriers, we have to understand what it is an aircraft carrier actually does. It's no good comparing the major carriers on how good they'd be at an amphibious landing for example, because that's not what they're for. An aircraft carrier is a natural extension of a nation's air force and navy. They allow nations to project their power far beyond their own borders through the use of aircraft, using the floating airstrip as a base. This is useful for defending allies, conducting strikes against enemies, enforcing no fly zones, and dominating sea lanes. They also provide important reconnaissance, humanitarian relief and strategic influence. As such there are several characteristics that are the most important when comparing carriers seeking to achieve their goals. And that brings us to our first comparison, sheer numbers. The USA currently has 11 aircraft carriers in its navy, and they are; the USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the newest of the lot, the Gerald R. Ford, which represents a class upgrade. Fancy. By comparison China has four. The Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian, and a mysterious fourth carrier about which most details currently aren't known. And Russia, only has one, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is actually classified as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, but it's the best they have. Russia used to have more, but one of its other carriers, known as the Gorkshov, was sold to India in 2004 and renamed, whilst another Soviet era carrier named Varyag actually became the Chinese Liaoning, after the hull was sold in 1998 by, and the irony here is quite humorous, Ukraine. So clearly, in terms of number of carriers the US is out in front. Quantity has a quality all its own, just ask the Russian army, and more carriers means more planes in the sky, which means a greater operational capability. Now, if we compared every single carrier on this list to each other we would be here forever. But you don't want to hear about how the 8th best US aircraft carrier stacks up against the 3rd best Chinese one, you want the best of the best. So that's what we're going to do. We're going to compare the Ford as the newest carrier from the US, against the Fujian from China, against the Kuznetsov. Why the Fujian and not the mysterious fourth carrier? Well, considering nobody really knows anything about it, this video would be very boring if I was shrugging my shoulders at the camera for twenty minutes. So, the Fujian as a very new carrier itself will do just fine. Now the last thing before we get into the technical stuff is there are things we cannot account for in our comparisons. Operational readiness, capability of troops, and the level of maintenance that these carriers kept at just to name a few. We won't be able to account for how the carriers are run day-to-day because it's too much of an unknown quantity. Sure, the Kuznetsov might have picked up a nasty smoking habit and the Russian Navy might be putting poorly maintained ships into service, just ask the Moskva at the bottom of the Black sea, but there's no way to know in a future combat situation if these kinds of issues could be resolved. So, we're just focusing on the technical stuff, numbers, loud noises, the things you're here for. We're assuming in this hypothetical comparison that all ships are running at 100%. Ready? Let's begin with everyone's favourite category. Size. ## Size Matters Now, why does it matter how big an aircraft carrier really is? Well, it's because an aircraft carrier's size is directly linked to its capabilities. For example, a larger vessel will be able to hold more and larger aircraft, increasing their combat effectiveness. It allows for more space below deck, which makes take-off and landing cycles more efficient and safer. Larger carriers carry more fuel, more ammunition, more food, more spare parts, more everything, which means they can operate longer without needing to be resupplied. It's more flexible for fulfilling multiple roles while more compartments and thicker armour means greater survivability. However, that does come at a massive financial and logistical cost, as well as painting a target on the biggest ship's backs, but the benefits for a wealthy country outweigh these drawbacks pretty easily. So how do our ships stack up? Well, the gold standard for a supercarrier is the Gerald R. Ford, you can always trust the Americans to "go big" … it's the "going home" they struggle with. The Ford is 333 metres long from bow to stern, and the flight deck is 78 metres wide, perfect for the modern generations of aircraft that need to be housed on the ship. Overall, the Ford displaces 100,000 tonnes of water, making it the largest warship ever assembled. Next, comes the Fujian and this relatively new Chinese carrier is no slouch when it comes to size either. Now any information about Chinese military specs is pretty spotty because Beijing aren't the biggest fans of giving their fleet information away. But from what we could find, the Fujian is believed to be about 320 metres long, and 73 metres wide, hardly a massive difference to the Ford, although this does technically make it more comparable to the Kitty Hawk class of carrier the US developed in the 1960s. As a slightly shorter and narrow craft, the Fujian displaces in the range of 80,000-85,000 tonnes of water at full load. The Kuznetsov is a little smaller still, at around 305 metres long and 72.3 metres wide, displacing around 58,000 tonnes at full load. Now the size of the carriers are obviously about right for what each country is aiming to achieve militarily, but in a scuffle, the Ford would have much greater capability owed to its higher capacity. But just how much more capacity does it really have? It's only a little bigger than the Fujian after all. Well let's find out. ## Capacity and Aircraft Now as you can imagine, because the Ford is the biggest, it also has the highest capacity. Sitting at between 75-90 aircraft that it can hold at any one time. Remember, the biggest air force in the world is the US Airforce. The second biggest air force in the world… is the US Navy, so those aircraft are numerous, advanced and pretty lethal. The Ford can carry the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-18 and its variants, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, the MH-60R/S helicopters, as well as a million different kinds of drones. Using all these aircraft, the Ford can fly up to 160 sorties a day and it's reported that number could rise as high as 220 per day in a crisis. The Fujian can allegedly hold up to 70 aircraft at any one time which would render the number of sorties that it could fly daily as a little lower than the Ford. But those planes are still no joke, as they will likely include the most modern generations of Chinese jets including the J-20, the J-10, the J-15, and maybe even the FC-31, the Chinese answer to the F-35. Additionally, they have multiple Russian airframes co-opted into the PLAAF like the Sukhoi Su-30, Su-35, and Su-27. And if that wasn't enough, much like the Ford it can also carry rotary-wing aircraft. So how does the older Kuznetsov stack up? Because the Kuznetsov isn't a full carrier, it's aircraft capacity is a fair sight lower than the other two, it's believed to carry between 33-50 aircraft at a time, including the Su-27, potentially the Su-33, the Yakovlev Yak-41M, as well as the Kamov Ka-27 chopper and its variants. It seems to have more of a balance between rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft, as opposed to the other two which are overwhelmingly fixed wing based. There's no real way to say which carrier comes out on top here, but considering the strength of US airframes and the increased capacity, I'm backing Uncle Sam. ## Propulsion and Engines But you can have all the aircraft and the most displacement in the game, if you can't power the thing, all you have is a big floating aircraft carrier-shaped island vulnerable to attack. Propulsion is crucial for aircraft carriers, sure, it's what stops them being sitting ducks in the water, but it also helps tell us how often the carriers will need to be refuelled and therefore how often they're actually available to do all the things they're advertised to do. The Ford once again, is the gold standard. It has an advanced nuclear propulsion system with two reactors, four shafts, and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the carrier, which gives its systems a 150% increase in electrical power over previous classes. And on top of that, it can travel at a speed of 30 knots, or 35mph. For a ship that displaces 100,000 tonnes of water, that might as well be an F1 car. And because it is fuelled by nuclear power, it doesn't need to be refuelled for DECADES at a time, which is useful for a carrier with a shelf-life of half a century. It means that it almost never needs to return to port for refuelling, only for resupply, meaning it can spend as much time on the open ocean as it needs to with a basically unlimited range. The Fujian is no slouch either, being able to get up the same speed as the Ford, but it is believed to be powered by a gas and diesel drive and an integrated electric propulsion system. This means it needs refuelling much more often and this will also affect the range at which it can sail at its highest speed. However, research indicates that their new secret carrier may well be nuclear powered. And then there's the Kuznetsov, with a top speed of 29 knots, and conventionally powered with eight boilers and steam turbines, which each produce 50,000 break horse power, it's pretty old school. But it's speed and range when combined is where it drops off. The Kuznetsov can only travel a little over 6,000 kilometres at its top speed before it needs refuelling. Its top range is 13,000 kilometres but at half speed, meaning it could get all the way from its current dock in Murmansk, all the way to the US East coast if it wanted to, but it wouldn't be able to get back again. But it's more conventional system does in theory mean the Kuznetsov is able to have several boilers falling redundant due to damage without stopping the vessel altogether, which might not be the case for something like the Ford if both nuclear reactors were damaged. So, there is something going for it. All three ships actually have a very similar top speed and that's no doubt important in a combat scenario, but when it comes to a mix of endurance and range, the Ford is far and away superior. ## Launch and Recovery Systems Ok so we've learned a lot about the carriers so far, but one of the most important characteristics of an aircraft carrier is the launch and recovery systems for the aircraft. How good that is impacts all sorts of things like combat readiness and stress on the aircraft. So, what are the specifications for launch and recovery among our three carriers? The Ford has a state-of-the-art Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or EMALS for short. This replaces the classic steam catapults that are used to fire the aircraft off the carrier like you've probably seen in Top Gun. The EMALS uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor, and yes, that does basically mean that the US now fires its aircraft out of a railgun. But it's not just the cool factor that makes this a better system, it can be better controlled, so that every time, based on the weight of the craft and its equipment, it can be launched with the exact power required, which ensures as little undue stress is put on the aircraft as possible. Drones, for example, simply don't need to be launched as fast as an F-35, so why would you? As for recovery, it also sports a new system known as the AAG, or advanced arresting gear, which works to create a similar result in reverse. It's a turbo electric system designed for deceleration using arresting cables, like most carriers do. But this system allows for aircraft to be slowed down based on their relative weight and speed, which will put less stress on them and in theory mean less rigorous maintenance. The Fujian is actually right up to speed on this one. It has catapults similar to other aircraft carriers, but these are electromagnetically assisted, considering that both the Liaoning and Shandong have the old style "ski jump" launch system, this means they have skipped a generation of tech entirely with the steam pistons that are common on Nimitz class US carriers. It's also believed that the Fujian has electromagnetic arresting capabilities similar to the Ford, but not much more is known. So, the Ford has the EMALS and AAG, the Fujian has a hybrid launch system, what about the Kuznetsov? Well, the Liaoning, has the ski jump and as it was a former Soviet vessel, and the Kuznetsov is much the same. It has a 12-degree ramp known as a "short take-off, barrier-arrested recovery" (or STOBAR) system. But this can slightly limit the kinds of aircraft that can be utilised, as well as their range and payload. No heavy aircraft can be used on a STOBAR system, and it lowers the sortie rate, and you have to pay closer attention to wind conditions on the deck before launching. As for recovery, it's the standard arrestor wires that work with a mechanical system rather than any kind of electrical technology. This kind of tech gap is to be expected though considering the Kuznetsov is an older carrier than both the Ford and Fujian, both of which blow the Kuznetsov out of the water in this regard. ## Offence and Defence Now, after all of that, you'd be thinking "surely Simon there's nothing left to compare" – but there is. After all, these carriers can't rely on aircraft alone for their offensive and defensive capabilities. If they did, one well-placed missile on the flight deck would wreak havoc and leave them defenceless. So how do our carriers compare when it comes to striking targets and avoiding getting hit themselves? For the Ford, it's best offence is a good defence, if it can stop itself being hit, it can operate at its maximum capacity, flinging planes out to deliver hundreds of kilos of freedom courtesy of Uncle Sam. And its planes and supporting ships would do a better job defending the carrier than the carrier likely could by itself anyway. To accomplish this defensive mastery, the Ford has a dual-band radar system. The X-band radar excels in high-resolution tracking, making it ideal for targeting and fire control. The S-band radar, on the other hand, provides long-range surveillance and early warning. Combining these two capabilities allows the Ford to efficiently manage multiple threats at the same time, including airborne aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, all with one system. And the radar being smaller means the island, the bit that sticks up on an aircraft carrier, can be smaller, allowing for even more space for aircraft. Additionally, it has electronic warfare capabilities and a stealthy design to reduce its own cross section on enemy radar. But it is still an aircraft carrier, it's basically a floating airport. As for the stuff that goes boom? The Ford has plenty to protect itself. It has two Sea Sparrow missile launchers which can defend it against medium-range missiles, anti-ship missiles, and aircraft. It has two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers to defend against threats like cruise missiles and drones at close range. For guns it has three PHALANX Close in Weapons System (CIWS) that can fire 4,500 rounds per minute to destroy nearby threats that the missiles miss. And then it has four M2 12.7mm machine guns to wrap up small threats like small drones and fast attack craft. Factor in the aircraft which also have torpedoes and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare, the mass of aircraft swarming it in general, and it's supporting ships? You're not anywhere getting near this thing, not without finding out why the US doesn't have free healthcare at least. The Fujian has an impressive arsenal all its own. Whilst we don't know the specifics, we know that the Fujian has an advanced radar array capable of identifying maritime as well as airborne threats. The ship's command and control systems are believed to incorporate artificial intelligence and data fusion technologies, further streamlining the decision-making process in combat scenarios. We also know it has electronic warfare capability, as well as the potential for directed energy or even acoustic weaponry. It's sea trials indicate four Type 730 CIWS systems in total that are similar to the US Navy's SEARAM system. These are often used on smaller ships that don't have a full RAM system like the Ford does. It also has four missile-based point defence systems. It is one of the most advanced ships of its kind when it comes to weaponry and is certainly a near-peer of the Ford. And this is the part where the Kuznetsov is laughed at for being older and worse, right? Well… not exactly. You might have forgotten, but the Kuznetsov isn't a full carrier. It's a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. And the "heavy cruiser" part means the Kuznetsov is armed to the TEETH. But let's start with the cutesy stuff, the ship has several different kinds of radar for navigation, target acquisition, surface assessment, and for some of its missile systems, as well as sonar capable of detecting submarines and torpedoes. What about missiles? The first, closer range, system is known as the Klinok, whilst the Fujian and Ford have several dozen missiles each, the Klinok alone has 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, aimed at defending it against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. The Klinok's radar makes it capable of firing once every three seconds, four targets can be engaged simultaneously all within a range of 12-15 kilometres. This ship is also equipped with a Granit anti-ship missile system with 12 launchers. This is designed mostly for ship-to-ship combat but it also has a range greater than 400 kilometres, and is capable of carrying conventional or even nuclear missiles, making it the only carrier on the list that can be ready to start an apocalypse at a moment's notice. Added to that is the Kortik CIWS system, providing a defence against incoming missiles, as well as aircraft and small sea targets. There are also eight extra guns that use laser guidance in a combined gun and missile system. The missiles can be guided up to eight kilometres away, whilst the 30mm twin guns can fire 1,000 rounds per minute from half a kilometre to 1.5 kilometres away. No, it's not finished. It has six 30mm anti-air guns, an entire anti-submarine system with 60 rockets designed to destroy enemy torpedoes. The system also has ten barrels capable of dropping depth charges and sea mines. Submarines can be engaged directly up to 600 metres and its full range for anti-sub warfare is three kilometres. That is to say, getting in range of the Kuznetsov would be like getting near Omaha beach in 1944. Now of course it's huge number of armaments has some downsides. It can't launch as many planes and it's designed to see direct combat, which isn't always wise if its your only carrier. The Fujian and Ford take a different approach, letting their aircraft do the brunt of the work. It's "catch me if you can" versus "come and get it". The Kuznetsov also has so much ammunition stored on it, that if its defences could be overwhelmed, or if a fire breaks out in the magazine, the explosion could probably be seen from orbit. But that is a big if, it is clearly the most well-armed of all the carriers here and could certainly handle itself in a fight at full strength. ## The Future of Aircraft Carriers Well, that was a lot of technical stuff to cover, I hope you learned something about each nation's current flagship. But now we cover maybe the most important factor of all, the future of aircraft carriers amongst our three nations. Let's start with the USA. If you thought that Washington D.C was going to stop at one new carrier, you don't know the Department of Defense. The Ford launched in 2017 but only started its first full deployment in 2023. While the USS John F. Kennedy is set to be launched this year in 2025, the second Ford class vessel. The USS Enterprise and Dorris Miller are both under construction and set to be launched in 2029 and 2032 respectively. And on top of that, the USS William J. Clinton and the USS George W. Bush have been ordered and are expected to be delivered on time in 2034 and 2036. Which means that by 2036, the US will have roughly a dozen active aircraft carriers in total, assuming over the next 11 years that the USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, and Theodore Roosevelt are all retired at the end of their 50-year service. This will see a real passing of the torch from the Nimitz class to the Ford class. The Nimitz itself is set to be retired in 2026 and a new era of US aircraft carriers fit for the modern age will be roaming the seas. So, the US is the top of the tree, and it's not going anywhere for now. Then you have China, which by 2035 plans to have a full suite of six aircraft carriers under it's employ. But by 2049, when the 100-year anniversary of the founding of the PRC is set to be celebrated, China wants to have a world class-fully integrated military, so who knows how many they could have by then. China are currently working on their fourth carrier, known internally as the Type 004, and it stands to be just as impressive if not more so than the Fujian. With China's growing military might, and their integration of things like energy weapons systems, AI, railguns and more, it will be the strongest opponent the US Navy has ever faced off against. The two may or may not directly come to blows, but with every passing year, China's capability grows, and it will soon be on par with the US in all but numbers, which is a crazy thought for a nation that didn't have any operational carriers at all until 2012. And then there's Russia. Bogged down with a war that's gone on three years longer than planned and having to buy weapons and equipment from North Korea and Iran. The Kuznetsov currently sits in a dock in Murmansk. For all of its capabilities when operational, Moscow just can't get the thing working, and it's been in and out of being repaired since 2018 when it was last seen bellowing smoke off the coast of the UK. It's supposed to be undergoing a total overhaul meant to take years. The Kremlin suggested it could be back in 2024, three years after it was supposed to be back already, but now in 2025 we still haven't seen it. At this stage it's unknown whether it will ever be back, at all. Russia did have a nuclear supercarrier project at least suggested by elements of the Russian government known as the Shtorm but the planning has never been approved, meaning the likelihood of it being built at this stage is slim to none. If you can't operate one old aircraft carrier without it catching fire, how in Neptune's beard are you going to build an even more complicated one in the middle of a war where you're currently short on material? The obvious answer is they can't. And for that reason, the Russian carrier force today is seen as something of a joke, China has already surpassed it and it's not looking back. Heck India, Japan and half of Western Europe have carriers these days, so in a sense they're all miles ahead of Moscow too. At least theirs float and the engines work. The reality is, that aircraft carriers are symbols of strength among nations for a reason. They're incredibly hard to build, taking massive amounts of material, manpower and military might to work. Their systems are highly complex and only become more so with every new generation, as do the aircraft they use. Not every country can have one, and the USS Gerald Ford is a great example of why. Who knows what incredible technologies they'll be able to fit onto them next, one thing's for sure though, they are some of the greatest instruments of war ever constructed. And they play one hell of an orchestra. ## Key Takeaways - The US has the largest fleet of aircraft carriers, with 11 active ships, compared to China's 4 and Russia's 1. - The USS Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced carrier, featuring nuclear propulsion and advanced launch/recovery systems. - China's Fujian carrier is technologically advanced but smaller than the Ford, with a focus on modern aircraft and integrated systems. - Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov is heavily armed but outdated, with limited aircraft capacity and conventional propulsion. - The future sees the US maintaining its lead with new Ford-class carriers, while China aims to expand its fleet to six by 2035. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How many aircraft carriers does the USA have? The USA currently has 11 aircraft carriers in its navy. ### What are the names of the US aircraft carriers? The USS Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the Gerald R. Ford. ### How many aircraft carriers does China have? China has four aircraft carriers: the Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian, and a mysterious fourth carrier. ### What is the name of Russia's only aircraft carrier? Russia has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is classified as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. ### What is the primary purpose of an aircraft carrier? An aircraft carrier is a natural extension of a nation’s air force and navy. They allow nations to project their power far beyond their own borders through the use of aircraft, using the floating airstrip as a base. ### What are the key characteristics that determine the capabilities of an aircraft carrier? Key characteristics include size, capacity and type of aircraft, propulsion and engines, launch and recovery systems, and offensive and defensive capabilities. ### What is the size of the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier? The Gerald R. Ford is 333 metres long from bow to stern, and the flight deck is 78 metres wide. It displaces 100,000 tonnes of water. ### What type of propulsion system does the Gerald R. Ford use? The Gerald R. Ford has an advanced nuclear propulsion system with two reactors, four shafts, and a zonal electrical power distribution system. ### What is the launch and recovery system used on the Gerald R. Ford? The Gerald R. Ford uses an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for launching aircraft and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for recovery. ### What are the future plans for the US aircraft carrier fleet? The US plans to launch several new Ford-class aircraft carriers by 2036, including the USS John F. Kennedy, USS Enterprise, Dorris Miller, USS William J. Clinton, and the USS George W. Bush. ## Sources - [Original MegaProjects video: USA v Russia v China: Aircraft Carrier Showdown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcuGCc-IA8) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/INS_Trikand_%28F51%29-image10.jpg) by This image photographed by Brian Burnell with permission was uploaded to Commons by George Hutchinson.To see his entire portfolio, click here. Permission to upload photographs by Brian Burnell is archived in the OTRS system as shown below each image. This image is protected by copyright! If you would like to use it outside Wikipedia, please read THIS first. The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Attribution / openverse, by-sa. ## Related Coverage