• China's newest aircraft carrier is a major capability and technological jump for its naval forces.
• But China still has a lot to learn before it can operate carriers like the US, experts say. 
• There's plenty China can learn from US experiences, but success will come down to talent and strategy.

China's newest aircraft carrier, which just completed its maiden sea trials, appears to be a substantial improvement over its two predecessors. It's a modern flattop boasting far more capability than China's earlier takes on an older Soviet design.

The Fujian clearly symbolizes China's desire to build a blue-water navy able to project power across the Indo-Pacific region, but there is still a lot of work to be done before it can field aircraft carriers the way the US Navy can on the high seas.

"China has demonstrated an ability to field the aircraft and the aircraft carrier platforms," Guy Snodgrass, a former defense official and US naval aviator, said, adding that "what has yet to be demonstrated is all the connective tissue needed to use these platforms together, during longer-term operations at sea, outside of regional support centers, and during times of conflict."

China isn't starting this process from scratch, though, and has the potential to learn from the long history of US carrier operations to accelerate timelines and make developing that "connective tissue" easier. Still, there's a lot to learn, and some of it can only be picked up from experience.

Technological leaps

The Fujian is China's third carrier overall and the only warship in its new class. It is larger than its Soviet-style predecessors, the Shandong and Liaoning, and the first to lose the ski-jump style ramp for launching aircraft, instead featuring an advanced catapult launch system akin to the one used on the US Navy's new Ford-class carriers.

Bryan Clark, a former naval officer and current defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told BI that the difference there is major, as it allows China to sortie larger, heavier, and more capable aircraft, such as fully-loaded fighters and early warning aircraft.

On the Shandong and Liaoning, for example, the ski jumps put limitations on the Chinese J-15s, reducing the amount of weapons and fuel with which the carrier-based fighters could fly.

"Now, with the catapult, China can get into heavier, more modern aircraft they're working on," Clark said. These planes include catapult-launched variants of the J-15, carrier-based early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft like the KJ-600, and a carrier variant of the J-35 stealth fighter, the latter of which is still experimental.

Clark added that the air wing on the Fujian, believed to be approximately 60 aircraft, will also be a jump up from the air wings of the Liaoning and Shandong, which carry 24 to 32 fighter jets and 12 to 17 helicopters, respectively.

The way China moved from the ski-jump style to the catapult indicates that it likely prioritized employing proven capabilities first before moving onto advanced Western-style ones. That approach appears to have accelerated China's ability to field new technologies and bought it time to work through any issues.

"The Fujian isn't using steam-powered catapults," Snodgrass said. "It's leaped past that technology to pursue an electromagnetic launch system" like the US Navy's USS Gerald R. Ford. The Fujian hosts three catapults on its deck, presumably giving it a higher sortie generation rate than the Liaoning and Shandong carriers, both of which could only launch one aircraft at a time.

It "reinforces the view that China continues to demonstrate an ability to field, test, refine, and develop capabilities faster than other nations," he added. China plans to build six carriers by 2035, but very few details on Fujian's successors have been revealed.

People are key

But just because China is going full steam ahead in its development of aircraft carriers doesn't mean they're catching up to the US.

Unlike the US Navy's nuclear-powered Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers, the Fujian is conventionally powered, meaning it will need to refuel. As with the Liaoning and Shandong, this can affect how far the ship travels from port and make logistics operations more difficult.

And because China only has three carriers, the latest still undergoing sea trials, the fleet's likely operating, for the time being, in a different capacity than the US force of 11 carriers does. The focus is more regional and on showing the flag.

"There's definitely a huge difference between the way we operate ours and the way that they can operate theirs today," ret. Adm. Raymond Spicer, the CEO and publisher at the US Naval Institute, said. "That's not to say they're not building more and then starting to expand to have a global presence, but they are far from that."

And while the Fujian's larger air wing and catapult system allow it to launch heavier aircraft and boost overall sortie numbers, they're still not holding a candle to US capabilities. That's mostly due to size and capacity, but it also has a lot to do with a core issue the Chinese Navy faces in employing its carriers: experience.

China's carrier force is young, only about 12 years old, and while it's made significant progress in that time, there's a knowledge of carrier operations that can only be gained by experience, Spicer said.

"They have a steep learning curve ahead of them," he said, adding that "if you compare what they're dealing with to what we've been dealing with, we've been doing aircraft carrier operations for decades. So we've got a whole cadre of people who are trained and have experience operating an aircraft carrier."

"I think people is the key," Spicer said.

The limited experience of even China's senior naval officers in this area makes it difficult to gain expertise and train new people.

Clark said that during a 2013 visit to San Diego, California, Adm. Wu Shengli, then commander of China's Navy, was most surprised by the number of people involved in carrier operations.

"They didn't realize that we had this whole cadre of hundreds of enlisted people that did all the operation of the systems, maintenance, and oversight of the actual flight deck operations," Clark said.

A challenge China is likely facing right now is developing a sustainable model for cultivating a workforce of people with carrier knowledge and experience to match the rate at which it wants to build carriers. And that extends into the naval aviation space as well as China works to recruit and train pilots.

China also faces challenges with how to defend its carriers. Carrier strike groups are an instrumental element for not only projecting more maritime power, but also defending the carrier and its aircraft in conflict.

China has at times sailed its aircraft carriers with older Type 052D and C destroyers, new Type 055 destroyers, frigates, and replenishment ships, but the integration and interoperability that makes a strike group effective takes time to master. The US, however, routinely sails strike groups around the world, most recently committing them to the ongoing battle with the Houthis in Middle Eastern waters.

Learning "the ballet" of carrier operations

As China continues to build and field carriers, its biggest learning opportunities short of active involvement in true carrier operations, will come from looking at what the US has been doing.

"There's a lot of information publicly available about operations," Spicer said, adding that any time China can watch and learn from US carrier operations, especially when they're operating in the Pacific, they're going to.

"There's a treasure trove of information out there that they're leveraging because we've been doing it a lot longer than they have," he said. But they still need the experience of actually doing the operations themselves.

"Carrier operations is a bit like a ballet," Snodgrass said. "There are a multitude of players, each with an assigned role, but everything needs to come together seamlessly for successful operational outcomes," be it logistics, supplies, food, fuel, ship-keeping, aviation operations, damage control, navigation, and more.

"Then, throw in the proficiency required to launch and recover large numbers of aircraft during 12-hour operational windows… during daytime and nighttime, and in inclement weather," he added. It's all challenging and only mastered through trial and error.

That said, a significant source of anxiety for US military leaders today, though, is China's strong track record of defying expectations when it comes to fielding and mastering new technologies and capabilities.

• I tried the cheapest cheeseburgers at McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's.
• They all cost around $3, excluding tax.
• I thought Burger King's cheeseburger was the most flavorful and best value.

The price of the fast-food burger has risen over the years.

Average fast-food menu prices have risen between 39% and 100% since 2014, and McDonald's prices have doubled in those 10 years, according to a May report by FinanceBuzz.

Rising fast food prices are due to factors including inflation and increased labor costs, but the classic cheeseburger remains one of the cheapest menu items at most fast-food chains.

I decided to order the cheapest cheeseburgers at the three biggest burger chains — McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's — to determine which one is worth your money.

They all came with the same classic ingredients: a single beef patty, one slice of cheese, and ketchup.

However, there was a clear winner in terms of taste and value.

Here are the cheapest cheeseburgers at McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King, ranked from worst to best.

My least favorite burger was the classic McDonald's cheeseburger.

The cheeseburger from McDonald's cost $3.49, excluding tax.

The burger came with a single beef patty, pickles, chopped onions, ketchup, mustard, and a slice of American cheese.

I rarely get a regular cheeseburger from McDonald's; I usually prefer the larger, more elaborate burgers like the Quarter Pounder Deluxe with cheese or the chicken sandwiches.

While I didn't mind the cheeseburger, it wasn't my favorite.

I thought the bun was a touch limp and the cheese could have been more melted.

I liked the taste of the pickles and the condiments.

However, the condiments overpowered the taste of the burger patty — this cheeseburger really only tasted of cheese and ketchup to me. I didn't really taste the onions, though I thought the pickles were tart and crunchy.

The junior cheeseburger from Wendy's ranked squarely in the middle.

The junior cheeseburger from Wendy's cost $3.74, excluding tax.

The burger had basically the same ingredients as the McDonald's cheeseburger but with a square patty.

It came topped with one slice of American cheese, pickles, onion, ketchup, and mustard on a toasted bun.

The burger seemed smaller than the other burgers I tried, but it had the thickest bun.

The cheese was more melted on this burger than on the one from McDonald's.

I found the burger to be flavorful and well-balanced.

All of the ingredients, from the burger patty to the cheese and the thick slice of onion, really amplified the flavor of this palm-sized burger.

The bun held up well, and I thought all the ingredients made this burger worth $3.74, which was the highest price of the three burgers.

However, it still wasn't my favorite, or the most flavorful, cheeseburger.

My favorite cheeseburger was also the least expensive. It came from Burger King.

The cheeseburger from Burger King cost $2.59, excluding tax.

The burger came with American cheese, pickles, ketchup, and mustard on a sesame-seed bun.

This burger appeared to have a more generous serving of toppings compared to the other two cheeseburgers I tried.

This was the only cheeseburger that didn't come with onions.

I was anxious to see if this would lessen the burger's overall flavor, but it didn't.

The cheese was thick and perfectly melted onto the burger patty, something I didn't experience with the burgers from McDonald's and Wendy's.

The sesame-seed bun also added a lot of flavor — something I didn't get from the classic toasted buns at the other two chains.

However, the standout star of this burger was the patty itself.

The flame-grilled burger had a strong, smoky flavor that didn't overpower the other ingredients and was complemented perfectly by the ketchup and mustard.

Not only was this burger the most flavorful, but it was also the best value — at $2.59, it was the cheapest burger I tried.

• Biden has rejected Ukraine's NATO membership bid as part of a peace agreement.
• It would weaken Biden's reelection chances, a foreign policy expert said.
• Ukraine's accession to NATO would be perceived as an escalation by Russia.

US President Joe Biden appears to have drawn a line beneath Ukraine's bid for NATO membership.

In an interview with Time Magazine this week, the US president said he was not prepared to support the "NATOization of Ukraine," adding that he had witnessed "significant corruption" in Ukraine when he visited as vice president.

"Peace," Biden said, "doesn't mean NATO."

Rather, a part of the condition for peace in Ukraine was building relations with Kyiv, including security guarantees which would lead to a situation "where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future."

Biden said, "Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine."

It comes as a blow to Ukrainian officials who have consistently pushed for a swift entry to NATO after the war's conclusion.

Earlier this week, a report by the Financial Times revealed that Ukraine's lack of progress toward NATO membership was a key issue creating tension in US-Ukrainian relations.

Ukrainian hopes are now pinned on the NATO meeting in Washington, scheduled for July 9-11, to bring a more definite signal for Ukraine's post-war membership.

Biden won't weaken his chances of getting reelected

The US ambassador to NATO, Julianne Smith, told reporters last month that Kyiv is unlikely to receive a membership invitation at the alliance's July summit, promising to offer a security package as a "bridge" to membership.

This bridge "will be well-lit and made of steel, and we will do everything we can to help our friends from Ukraine, step by step, walk across that bridge to membership eventually."

However, refusing to move forward with an accelerated membership plan leaves Ukraine's hopes for NATO membership in the lurch.

Leo Litra, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Business Insider, "Biden is trying to solidify the idea for the US public that the US is not getting involved so he doesn't weaken his chances of getting reelected."

Referring to Biden's TIME Magazine comments, Litra said, "No one in NATO and especially not in the US, wants to have to test Article 5."

NATO's Article 5 upholds the principle of collective defense and would compel the US and Western nations to commit their military forces to defend Ukraine.

For now, Ukraine has to settle for a range of "security guarantees."

In addition to a G7 Joint Declaration made at the NATO summit in Vilnius in July last year, Ukraine has signed 15 bilateral security agreements with NATO member countries. All the agreements contain various pledges for the current year as well as boilerplate provisions for the duration of the deal.

Stefan Meister, head of the Eastern Europe program at the German Council on Foreign Relations, told BI that the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer was a major wake-up call for the international community.

Meister said these packages will provide Ukraine with "more reliable long-term military and security support by NATO member states."

Some Ukrainian officials believe these guarantees are a "game changer." Just after Ukraine signed a security agreement with the UK in January, Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Ukraine's security council chief, wrote in The Economist, "Agreements on security co-operation are gradually moving Ukraine into the Western security space, without requiring the presence of Western troops on Ukrainian soil."

He added: "Such agreements create the basis for Ukraine's accession to NATO, which was decided on back in 2008 in Bucharest," when NATO welcomed Ukraine's aspirations to join the alliance.

A US State Department spokesperson confirmed to BI that a US-Ukraine security agreement was in the works.

"Our bilateral security arrangements will be focused on supporting Ukraine's defense in Putin's war of choice, building the credible deterrence capabilities of Ukraine's future force, and providing emergency response options in the event of future Russian aggression," the spokesperson said.

One confirmed offer that will come at this year's July summit will be an agreement from NATO to Ukraine to expand cooperation in defence technology and intelligence exchange regarding Russia's electronic warfare capabilities, NATO Assistant Secretary General David van Weel told reporters Tuesday.

However, Meister said that the lack of stable military aid commitments beyond 2024 "reflects the current challenges faced by Ukraine and its allies and divisions within NATO."

He said these packages are a reaction to the situation that there is no agreement among the member states for NATO integration. Each NATO member state has to do "more planning for long-term support for Ukraine" on its own back.

Zelenskyy's office did not respond to a request for comment from BI.

Although there have been strong demonstrations of support for Ukraine from NATO allies, experts warn that these guarantees carry little weight without the promise of full membership.

"Without NATO membership for Ukraine, security guarantees for Ukraine are blatant lies," Canadian analyst Michael MacKay wrote on X. "Keeping Ukraine out of NATO serves the interests of the Russian terrorist state only."

Litra said, "Ukraine relied on a similar 'guarantee' without legal mechanisms under the Budapest Memorandum," Litra said, referring to the 1994 security assurances in which Ukraine was required to hand over its nuclear arsenal in exchange for protection from the United States, the UK, and Russia. "But this Memorandum did nothing to prevent the war."

While Ukraine and some NATO members see these agreements as "instruments to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership in the future," Litra said that "the overall feeling, especially in the US and Germany is that Ukraine's accession to NATO would be an escalation for Russia."

According to Meister, "There is no alternative to NATO integration."

These guarantees are "the second best options Ukraine can get at this moment. They could lead to a NATO integration, but we are still far away from this," Meister said.

• A Tesla Cybertruck owner went viral for polishing his vehicle to have a mirrorlike finish.
• Some social media users raised concerns that the customization presents road safety hazards.
• Traffic experts told BI that it might not be safe but there are no regulations around it.

Having a Cybertruck with a mirrored body may not be the safest idea, but it's not illegal, highway safety experts and a traffic court attorney told Business Insider.

In May, Tyson Garvin went viral on social media for polishing his Tesla Cybertruck to have a mirrorlike exterior.

Garvin told BI that he felt the polishing job was not only an aesthetic improvement but also a practical upgrade. He said the new look helped with the common issue of fingerprint stains on the vehicle's stainless steel exterior.

But is it safe?

Social media users reacting to Garvin's customization raised concerns that the car could be a road safety hazard if the truck's exterior reflected headlights back at drivers — and if the vehicle blends in with its environment on the road as well as it appears to in photos.

Garvin told BI he had similar concerns about drivers' headlights bouncing off the truck's tailgate when driving at night. He said a road test he conducted with his wife showed that the tailgate only reflected the road because it is slightly slanted downward.

Experts told BI there isn't much literature on whether reflective exteriors present higher risks.

"Reflective glare may pose the same problem for other drivers as headlight glare, but I am not aware of any research documenting whether this leads to or is associated with increased crash risk," David Zuby, chief research officer for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told BI in an email.

Johnathon Ehsani, a research director at Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy, told BI he wasn't aware of studies that revealed the impacts of a vehicle's exterior color.

However, Ehsani added that there are two possible "mechanisms" that could make a reflective Cybertruck a road risk.

The first regarded concerns raised online: It's certainly possible that reflected glare from the vehicle can temporarily blind other drivers, Ehsani said, cautioning that he would have to see the vehicle in person to make a more certain conclusion.

Garvin told BI that the Cybertruck's shape causes sunlight to reflect onto the ground rather than towards other drivers.

The far more plausible scenario for road risks is not unique to the reflective Cybertruck, Ehsani said.

"The far more plausible case is a crash mechanism that is far more common, that people crash from every single day," he said," and that's that it might attract attention because it's such an unusual-looking vehicle."

Ehsani co-authored a 2013 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health that documented the impact of a distracted driver. His research found that drivers are 3.8 times more likely to crash if they divert their attention from the road for more than two seconds.

This issue, of course, is not limited to exotic or highly unusual vehicles, Ehsani said.

"It's not that different to, for example, looking at a billboard for longer than you need to or even messing around with your entertainment console," he said.

'Asking to be pulled over'

A polished Cybertruck may attract some legal burdens even if there are no laws regarding customizing a vehicle's exterior color.

Martin A. Kron, a longtime New York traffic court attorney and former judge, told BI in an interview that he's never dealt with a legal issue for a car's paint job in his 38 years of practice.

But having a car with an outlandish color attracts the attention of everyone — including police officers, he said.

"Although there may not be a spelled out legal prohibition against it, in the real world, if you're driving a customized car, you're asking to be pulled over," Kron said, adding that officers could pull the driver over and sniff out other reasons to give a ticket.

Zuby, the chief research officer for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told BI that the car's paint job also likely has no impact on insurance rates.

He said that insurers are mostly restricted to using past experiences rather than "predictive assessments" to set rates.

"So, unless an insurer had somehow documented that shinier vehicles had higher losses than less shiny ones, it would be unlikely to affect premiums paid," Zubu said. "Plus, it's unclear how an insurer would know that an insured made the vehicle shiny after purchase."

That is unless your vehicle is featured in a global publication, of course.