Should the US start using smaller, lighter aircraft carriers instead of supercarriers in use today to prevent a catastrophic loss of so many lives in a single attack?
no, becuase as attack technology advances, so too does defence technology, and the pendulum continues to oscillate between the attacker and the defender
Nathan Ramirez Maybe one single jet or rocket may not be enough, but mind if I ask which you think costs more? 1000 rockets or 1 carrier? I am pretty sure a carrier, even with escorts, will not survive a barrage of 1000 well aimed maritime missiles if the missiles are designed for sinking ships. The carrier costs more than the 1000 missiles, so the carrier is a bad investment.
By who's definition? Yours? Hypersonic missiles fly you mean? The medium here is air? Else anyone in orbit can throw a ball and call it a hypersonic ball, lol!
Dont worry this whole video is factually inaccurate. Seems to be very America did this 1st aswell? Other fact checks 1. First ship to launch military power was in Austria vs venice 1849 not American civil war 2. First aircraft carrier ( as we know it today) wasnt an american cruiser with a deck strapped to it.
@@eagleeye1969 Lol Subsonic is < 1Mach. It's kinda in the name and I didn't need to Google thank you very much. I'm an Aerospace Engineer, so know these things anyway. Thank you for assuming though :)
Yes aircraft carries provide a huge advantage on the battlefield. First of all they are essentially a floating air force base with everything essential for aircraft support that can be moved anywhere in the word relatively quickly. Whereas setting up an actual airforce base near the intended target country would be quite involved. From finding a suitable space, transporting the airframes, parts and tools for maintenance, fuel, weapons, and personnel. While there is a threat to aircraft carriers it will always be safer and more cost effective due to their mobility and ability to be in the fight faster than setting up a land based air force base.
Zachary Schaller As you said yourself, carriers are a floating air force base. Must I remind you that anything that floats can sink? Also, the carrier's range is limited by the geography or an area, and whether or not there is water. Additionally, you do realize even Sweden has the technology to sink a carrier, right?
D Liu you do know that test is nearly 20 years out of date right since by that logic why use surface ships at all since Submarines are the true kings of the oceans as they can do everything.
@seth, Did you know 12 years ago isn't 20 years at all? lol! 2015? Yup 3+ decade ye old French Saphir sinks the 2 sub escorts, the US carrier and 7 of it's surface fleet ships. Kudo's go to the vintage 1960s Canadian submarine versus a entire US Carrier Battle Group ... Little sub wins! ;-)
The problem with smaller ships is shorter rotation, no matter which aspect you look at. Can you really establish a presence when you have to turn right around to resupply?
Xenon Yeah but if you keep track of the US military, it's always lacking quantity, for 600B+ budge you'd except the US to have a lot but it's always replacing it's military equipments with new, better and improved stuff so they're gonna replace the carriers with the new super carriers like the Ford class.
@General Goldy not as much as our carriers in battles like midway which was a strictly carrier combat and cost the lives, ships, and planes on the Japanese sid. Also coral sea.
@@arkroyal actually the battle of midway had no American battle ships but did have 3 carriers the Japanese had two battle ships but lost the battle and as far as coral sea it was the first battle where the two fleets never saw each other strictly aircraft from you guessed it carriers this battle had no battle ships on either side. Two of the most important battles in the pacific.
the writing is already on the wall due to the rise of anti-ship missile tech by Russia and China. A2/AD doctrine combined with hypersonic missiles will do more than dull the "Tip of the spear" once they become fully operational in the coming years. Current missile tech already more than evened the playing field in the S China Sea
@@dliu4827 with respect I served on the USS Enterprise during a deployment back in 2007 while air craft in Bahgram air base were grounded because of a sand storm for about week through out that time my carrier was the only means of air support ground troops had in Afghanistan during the time so yes it is relevant
Yes. You do. 1. It's a mobile base. Thus can be relocated with relative ease. 2. They can carry a lot of supplies. I.E. they can remain long term anywhere. They can repair vessels on site. 3. Derivative of both 1 and 2. They can carrie Plains and their fuel everywhere.
fanOmry Carriers can't repair other vessels. Could they carry some spare parts? Maybe. Could they repair their aircraft? Most definitely, until they run out of parts for them. But you're not going to use an aircraft carrier to repair an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. You'd need a dockyard for permanent repairs and would likely conduct temporary repairs with a dedicated ship.
@@noname117spore strike forces can have said ships on hand, and most of the time they do, I forget the name of them but they are included as auxiliary vessels, in naval warfare ships perform "DC" or damage control to get the ship into working order rather permanent repairs, at all costs, a DC is suppose to prevent the ship from sinking, then patch repairs can be applied later so the vessel can be brought to a dock
@@noname117spore You forget. We now have 3DPs. Instead of a lot of a larges inventory of each part. We can now print whatever part we need as long as we have the material. And Cariers are *Huge.* They have the room.
Lol the American carriers have already been proven wrong of their supposed invincibility numerous times, and they are way superior to Britains. HMS Queen Elizabeth, waste of 2 Billion pounds
Control of the sea lanes and the oceans will never be unimportant. US domination of sea and space is vital for western hegemony. I'm happy that the UK has built 2. To be a useful partner to our allies is not a bad thing
Love you infographics and you usually get everything spot on, I'm just being picky but don't forget ships also come equipped with CRAM's (counter rocket artillery and mortar) which are just huge miniguns, that shoot at projectiles coming towards a ship
Of course you need them. they're super valuable and just because new tech and tactics are starting up doesnt mean they're super obsolete suddenly. The US military already thinks of these things.
Aircraft carrier are still important but maybe we can create better defensive. Maybe one strategy that should be deploy before carrier get in range of these missile. Is for the aircraft carrier to deploy scouting aircraft. Then once the target have been located. Then send out stealth aircraft to precisely take out these defensive. Then once the raid are successful. Then bring in the aircraft carrier. The thing is that you don't haft to take out all of them just enough for the aircraft carrier to be less worry. Also for the aircraft just have some radar platform to spot the aircraft far away from the fleet. Then send intercepter to take out the aircraft before they get close to the fleet. That way the aircraft are reduce and the multiple cursor and destroyer can take care of the missile. Also I don't think you realize this but multiple destoyer and cursor this those type of defences are in each fleet. Also the carrier have it own defensive that can handle fast missile attacks. But also I definitely think we should build more smaller carrier so we can be more mobile and less reliatent on the super carriers.
China: "Modern missiles make aircraft carriers worthless." Also China: "We have 4 more aircraft carriers in production, each one larger than the next!" Yeah, China's anti-ship ballistic missiles are a paper tiger. China's ballistic missiles are less accurate against stationary targets than Russia or the US missiles. Hitting a moving target going 30knots, hundreds of miles away is astronomically harder, and require a high quality weapon's lock. The only feasible way is to have heavily networked systems, where an aircraft can send weapon a quality radar signature data to mid flight ballistic missile. That's a cluster f*ck when people are not trying to shoot you. But, hell. Let's say China can get a good-enough networking system in place that works, they'd still have to get an aircraft within less than 100 miles of an aircraft carrier battle group, for a good length of time. Put simply, that would be suicide.
+A Artisan Islands are unsinkable battleships, however I am skeptical. I think they are there to intimidate neighboring countries and steal resources. The longer they hold those islands, the longer it will be normalized, like how Russia has taken those Japanese islands to the north. Submarine control via low frequency coms is also a concern because the Chinese have a big underwater-entrance submarine base.
this right in line with the ccp fake out campaign telling the world they are weak so they can build up the military and the world needs to be prepare too otherwise they might get the drop on us.
We already operate small specialized carriers. McCain even proposed a mix of large/small carriers. The small carriers get the day to day operations of mission support and force projection.
Yes we do that's the only way to transport planes The first aircraft carriers in ww1 sucked,ww2 aircraft carriers were better but the deck was straight, a plane would probably skid across the deck and splash in the water an landing,modern aircraft carriers are better because they are bigger,Carrie more aircraft, and have a better deck shape that planes won't skid across it and splash in the water
No it's not, its the only reasonable way to launch planes form a ship. (planes can literally be transported by anything with enough room, just not launched from said ship, unless the planes are VTOl)
Planes can fly the bomber can fly and a large bomber wouldn't be able to take off from a ship they need miles of run way, the jets that take off from a ship are specifically designed to be able to handle that
We don't need to transport planes, they can fly across the oceans on their own. You forget about aerial refueling for smaller fighters but the bigger bombers have enough fuel to fly pretty much anywhere they want in this modern age. We havent transported planes with a carrier for a very long time. Now helicopters still need to be transported though.
Good video, a few thoughts on it: 1. China's ballistic missile force may be large, but the number of missiles designed to hit moving targets is much smaller. 2. Raytheon has tested an over the horizon shot with an SM-6 missile by using an F-35 to track the target and then send the track information by using MADL (the F-35's datalink), so the Navy may not be quite so vulnerable to low flying missiles. That being said, I still question the utility of aircraft carriers for their cost. In theory, you can park one off of the coast of some country where you don't have basing rights and still project force, but in a peer conflict, carriers don't have enough or the right aircraft be able to go it alone without the support of land-based aircraft, and relying so heavily on your air defenses to defeat every single attack without fail seems risky. Land based airbases, for all their vulnerabilities, at least have some more options protect themselves, like hardened structures or dispersion of assets. In addition, even more novel approaches are possible, like hiding your air force on highway strips (or potentially even less) or building larger, longer range aircraft that can outrange all but the longest range ballistic missiles (which can be defended against with comparatively cheap air defense missiles). If I had to make the decision, I would probably invest in stuff that functionally resembles the Soviet Kiev class aircraft carriers. Still a fully functional cruiser with all the air defenses, but a more flexible and cheaper strike option than TLAMs.
Yes. The argument that hypersonic cruise missiles is a red herring. Sure, they can be used as an area of denial effect weapon vs a CV. However, your navy will still get stomped in any blue water engagement without a CV. You lose so much scouting and strike capability that you might as well just not sail out. Also, they remain central as bases of operation for projection of power deployments. Without one, you will never be able to send a task force with against any country with an air force. However, the question really is that should you really build supercarriers anymore. Or would it be better to build multiple small carriers so you don't put all your air power in 1 basket in any potential engagement.
Not even China or Russia expects to contest the US in blue water. But they will keep aircraft carriers several hundred miles away from their coast since land based airpower with cruise missiles will devastate any fleet that gets too close without its own land based airforce.
Well it mostly depends on which continent you're in. In Indo-China or Southeast Asia naval warefare would be a big thing thus having a good airforce means you're not to be messed with
Aircraft Carriers were superior during WW2 just because planes could carry bombs and drop them on enemy ships while carrier herself is far away from battle and safe. Now the development of rockets after the WW2 allow striking even carriers from far away. I think ships lile Kirov-class Battlecruiser is future of the navy. Of course Kirov could be seen obsolete, but development would bring more powerful ships. Imagine heavy rocket attack on carrier from really far away, and Russia still claim their S400 cam shoot down F35. So why shouldn't they develope some air defence ship like S400? Carriers indeed will be obsolete
Commentary for the video waa good but the "infographics" were off. A stealth drone was presented as a "tanker", a modern seaplane was used in place as a ww1 seaplane, a british spitfire with its landing gear lowered was bombing pearl harbor, etc.
The Swedish Gotland-class submarine has beaten US Nimitz class carrier groups in multiple war games. In all war games played, a single sub was able to get past the escorting Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates and score multiple hits on the carrier AND get away safely. Important fact to note is that this Diesel powered sub costs less than a single F-35 warplane. It has completely changed the field of Naval warfare. There is little or no defense against ultra quiet Diesel subs using Stirling engines. They are cheap to build and you can be sure that the US's enemies have taken note of this as a possible way to overcome the US Naval might.
So you were WRONG on 2 firsts, the British were the first to use military sea planes lowered by crane as reconnaissance just prior to ww1 and the first practical flat top was the British HMS Argus.
I didn't say dedicated, I said practical, the Argus completed in 1918 and was a converted Italian ocean liner; cancelled due to the war the the British converted her. The Hosho was completed in 22. The first flight from a stationary ship was from the USS Birmingham, which was a CRUISER, the first flight from a moving ship the British Charles Sampson from the HMS London was BUT AGAIN I didn't say first flight, I said first military use, i.e. what he refereed to in the video.
And while we are at it almost every major development in aircraft carrier design was made by the British, the plane arrest system, the steam catapult, the full deck with tower, the hurricane bow, the armoured deck to name but a few, oh and radar!
@clifton, totally fake US news propaganda. First aircraft carrier designated ship was the Foudré in 1911 remember? Well before flattops both cruisers and battleships we're launching planes off it's deck with catapults.
I think they should try smaller carriers in larger numbers. Smaller carriers would be possible with the f35 as it is a VSTOL and does not require a launch catapult or arresting wires.
speedy01247 Yet Sweden, a country who hardly places any value on its military, successfully built a submarine capable of sinking a US carrier (and the US admitted it after that "happened" during a simulated drill).
@Free Speech *stare with disgust* Everytime people are arguing about a matter dedicately and suddenly there is a guy/girl that incite hate about things outside of this topic.
no they didnt battleships are useless in modern warfare, yes, but they still tried to modernize them with VLS cells, helicopter pads, and CIWS, but they still proved useless, and outrageously expensive
@@greatwarships2758 look up what AEGIS is capable of, it is designed to stop anything from hitting their vessel or other vessels, a shell will be no match for 60+ point defense CIWS 30mms
Unless the enemy's weapon is nuclear, a 100% casualty rate when ship sinks is highly unlikely. The Sheffield had 250 personal on board, only 20 died when it sunk.
A little bit of modification on these carriers can make them function as mini airport. Which ll be useful in remote areas and can help developing countries.
No count for the constant awac surveillance systems no count for the routine Patrol that is in constant flight no count for classified weapons and Battlefield awareness equipment no count for the vast military satellites in position over any given area. Going to have to say there's a whole lot of holes in this personal assessment of yours. And also like to add there's a whole lot more than just one Aegis ship guarding that supercarrier you mentioned nothing about the rest of the task force.
Or the Russian subs with torpedoes that can do 200mh underwater and launch cruise missiles from underwater and unlike the old ones are now so silent a nato taskforce that was closely following one completely lost it. Their new subs can run so silent they couldn't find it in open water, just think how noisy it is with all those escort ships around.
@@Jake12220 it may be able to go 200 miles an hour but first it's got to make it within a 5-mile radius to even have a chance. On top of that they are only capable of shooting in a straight line non maneuverable. They would have to get in a lot closer than 5 miles undetected to shoot it. Ahead of every task force and Within it are dedicated assets who's so purpose is to locate and detect hard targets beneath the Seas with a vest array of capabilities. I'm not saying it would be impossible for them to get a Kill. but they most certainly would be destroyed immediately. And most certainly would not be taking out a carrier due to its limited explosive best it can hope for is a smaller Destroyer or frigate possibly a sub if they can detect or find one of ours. It most certainly won't be a game changer not up against the most advanced and highly trained men and women of the US Navy call me biased if you want. but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. They can talk and show off pound the chest and rattle the Sabor but that's all we will ever see from Russia. No real threat to the us anymore and haven't been for decades.
@@MRB2580 I wouldn't say sunk it but did get a firing Solution on it. Maybe you're not understanding how hard it is to sink a carrier. Even our World War II carriers we're tough as he'll to sink. And I think most of them were sunk buy us rather than repaired them. But I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just telling you there's no Navy out there that can withstand the might or share number of u.s. Navy asset available nor the training in conflict experience that the US has.
3:55 on the right ish, the jet landing from the front, M8 thats not how you land. also there is more than just a single destroyer protecting the carriers, and the carrier does have some anti air defense, and if a nuclear launch platform was firing at a carrier, a nearby strike force would take them down and a fighter would be launched to intercept the missile.
Yes. We still need Aircraft carriers But we need more defensive armaments on carriers. Possibly even bring back the battleship just for the defense platform the 16 inch gun could be retro fitted and re imaged as a shot gun for small incoming threats.
Theres two major mistakes in this infographic: 1.) Most sea skimming cruise missiles are subsonic, meaning that they travel slower than the speed of sound. Which is ideal for such a missile as it grants them greater maneuverability and stealth when approaching the target. 2.) Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds greater than mach 5. And by the very nature of hypersonic flight, they cannot be sea-skimming as the extreme heat of air friction at those speeds would essentially melt them down unless they were flying at much higher altitude and then diving down once they were over their intended target.
Aircraft carriers will only works if enemies don't have radars or defense mechanism . It will works if opponents lacks air power , and lacks missile tech . Moving onto enemies near den hole will make aircraft carrier vulnerable , so in brief it can be used to low level military ranking countries like Iraq, Afghanistan etc not for attacking or threatening military powers . USA doing freedom of navigation in SC with carriers , striker groups and it has never worked and in fact it made Chinese more aggressive .
China knowing no one had surface forces made them more aggressive. In 1996 when the PRC threatened the ROC and the USN deployed two CVSGs the PRC backed down. They felt humiliated. THAT is why they want carriers to threaten their neighbors as they have.
Sorry complete fake news and fake comment ... US is a non signatory to UNCLOS. If the US is doing FON it is doing fake FON at best. That's like men saying WE are having a baby.
@Israeli Defense Forces McDonald's doesn't have the ability to project US military power all across the world and can also hold 60-90 aircraft at a time depending on what is on-board.
Try using a few light carriers as carriers for tankers and several dozens of light carriers for air superiority fighters and act in front of the super carriers.
Small CVs are good.However,you have to bear in mind that there would be a lot of aircrafts up in the air,making the air space tight and potentially be dangerous (as the air traffic controller has to communicate with different controllers who are onboard of other ships) when catapulting and landing.More ships will make commanding a fleet more complicated and small CV with limited hanger size will have no aircrafts before a big one (If both CVs lose a plane every 20mins).
Im late. I know. We do need supercarriers. tell ya why: 1. They are great command posts for ground, air and sea commanding. 2. They provide great air support 3. They have multiple destroyers with them, so they can fight off missles.
Carriers just need to be outside the kill range or a safe location, the move out of it during an offensive operation. Carriers have lots of functions, that nothing so far can fully replace.
Exactly I also feel that the ideal size of modern aircraft carriers will be akin to French Charles D Gaul carrier. 1 squadron of fighters and extreme manuverbility with moderate offensive/ defensive weapon systems.
When they mentioned smaller carriers, anyone else think a large carrier surrounded by small carriers and battleships? I doubt that would work but it would sure look cool.
I wish you would get to the point faster. I waited for the entire first half of the video, four minutes, while you unnecessarily summarized the entire history of the aircraft carrier. Then, finally, you addressed the topic.
I guess the better questions are 1: what is the Largest Aircraft & what is the minimum size for Carriers to accommodate for them? 2: could there be Modernized Battleships that could counter any anti-carrier weapons?
Yes, because if a war breaks out it is basically a mobile command centre with availability of aerial vehicles landing and taking off, so if a military base needed to be set up in the case of emergency such as a war, it would be cheaper and faster to drive a military base with an airfield to a war than to construct one
With missile technology being what it is, carriers are floating targets, one you can locate one, a saturation attack with heavily damage them or sink them completely
Despite the multiple problems with this video, let me point out the most blatantly obvious one. So if “16-20 strike aircraft” could “easily overwhelm” a carrier strike group, then wouldn’t a ship that carried around 45 strike aircraft be *extremely* powerful in naval combat? And besides ship-to-ship combat, aircraft carriers are still very useful for multiple other tasks. Air interception, EM Warfare and HARM strikes, airborne early warning, air support for land invasions, and ASW capability (obviously all of this is through the use of the aircraft it carries). A destroyer or guided missile cruiser simply cannot do all of that.
To argue into this piece: its takes 5 hours to fly across the Atlantic and 8-10 hours across the pacific. It requires a lot of fuel and planning for anything other then strategic bombers to make it across the world. The normal flying hours of the F18 is about 5 hours. Aircraft carriers shortening the distance and the need to refuel.
A few years ago there was talk about bringing back dirigibles as carriers (possibly drone carriers), so America doesn't need land-based airfields to provide air superiority to extremely in-land forces. I can only hope it's the glorious return of the best vessel: THE ZEPPELIN!
None of the factors in this video were specific to aircraft carriers. They were all concerns about the operation of ships in general. If anything, the concerns the video raised apply least of all to aircraft carriers, since they don't need to get close to shore to do their job. An amphibious ship needs to get very close to shore, a gunship needs to get close enough to see and hit targets, but an aircraft carrier doesn't need to be remotely close to a target area to send planes there.
Yes we need carriers. Air superiority and aerial recon are essential in any type of warfare. Also carrier strike groups enable America to project power in a short amount of time. If anything, I'd say battleships are becoming obsolete.
The main problem with Ballistic Missiles is they can destroy a large stagnant target like cities and bases. Aircraft Carriers are useful still because they are mobile air bases. The launcher has to be exceptionally lucky to hit the target at the right place at the right time. Carriers are constantly moving and don't stay on the same course so it's difficult if not impossible to take down a carrier thousands of miles away.
It's a shame that when you listed the aircraft types, there were no aerial refueling platforms. The Navy uses the F/A18 Super Hornet as an aerial refueler, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy much more quickly than other missions. As one naval flight officer said... “The Navy has painted itself into a corner with Super Hornet tankers. The mission eats up fatigue life at a ridiculous rate, and there is something really, really stupid about using your most capable strike platform as a tanker.”
Pretty sure HMS Hermes was the first actual aircraft carrier. The British were responsible for most modern day tactics still used on aircraft carriers to this day, they also designed the catapult used on aircraft carriers.
You know wars are often fought with obsolete weapons and tactics, so this is not new, The Aegis ships are supplemented by Hawkeye radar equipped air command and control aircraft which fly high and can see over the horizon, so at to give a heads up to the destroyers defending the carrier. And we do have smaller carriers like the America class assault ships, so there is that. But to generate the sotie rate needed in combat you would need a lot more baby flat tops to equal one supercarrier and as happened at Midway were Japan lost all four of her carriers in one day, the same could apply to losing a flottita of small carriers and the escortes ships as well.
I've always wondered myself about the necessity of carriers in the modern age. I think their roles can be reduced. I can understand their need in the WW1/2 era as they literally extend the reach and accuracy of an assault on a target using attack planes. Those attack planes of old are the equivalent (somewhat) to a smart bomb or missile of today so I am not sure we need that purpose built into carriers anymore when we have the technology of very smart and long range missile attack capabilities. Maybe carriers of today should be re-purposed using planes for reconnaissance, and electronic jamming and submarine hunting. They can have more missile load-outs and less planes for attack roles.
Should the US start using smaller, lighter aircraft carriers instead of supercarriers in use today to prevent a catastrophic loss of so many lives in a single attack?
yes
At 3:37 the plane you use is a. British Spitfire. You need to fix that.
No
no, becuase as attack technology advances, so too does defence technology, and the pendulum continues to oscillate between the attacker and the defender
I think that smaller, lighter carriers with more of an emphasis on drones and electronic warfare will be a winning combo.
Do we still need The Infographics Show?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Then why are you watching them?
Yes, how else would we get our false information
r/wooooooooooooooooooooooosh
Lolololololololol
If you want total domination on the battlefield. Yes.
u mean no russian mig 31 one rocket destroyes 1 aircraft carier
are you in litterally in every video? lmao
"One Russian mig 31-" *BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT*
Nathan Ramirez
Maybe one single jet or rocket may not be enough, but mind if I ask which you think costs more? 1000 rockets or 1 carrier? I am pretty sure a carrier, even with escorts, will not survive a barrage of 1000 well aimed maritime missiles if the missiles are designed for sinking ships. The carrier costs more than the 1000 missiles, so the carrier is a bad investment.
Nathan Ramirez
Why would they use an exposed warplane? Even Sweden has submarines capable of sinking US carriers (the US itself admitted it).
Hypersonic missiles at Mach 2-3? By definition Hypersonic missiles travel at > Mach 5
Transonic @Mach 0.8 to 1.2
Supersonic @ Mach 1.2 to 5
Hypersonic @ > Mach 5
By who's definition? Yours?
Hypersonic missiles fly you mean? The medium here is air?
Else anyone in orbit can throw a ball and call it a hypersonic ball, lol!
Dont worry this whole video is factually inaccurate. Seems to be very America did this 1st aswell? Other fact checks
1. First ship to launch military power was in Austria vs venice 1849 not American civil war
2. First aircraft carrier ( as we know it today) wasnt an american cruiser with a deck strapped to it.
@@eagleeye1969 Lol Subsonic is < 1Mach. It's kinda in the name and I didn't need to Google thank you very much. I'm an Aerospace Engineer, so know these things anyway. Thank you for assuming though :)
Yes. You can store so many dvd copies of Shrek on it lmao
Yes
DVD? Bah, primitive. My super carrier is full of the Shrek Blu Ray Steel book with digital codes.
Shrek 3
Yes aircraft carries provide a huge advantage on the battlefield. First of all they are essentially a floating air force base with everything essential for aircraft support that can be moved anywhere in the word relatively quickly. Whereas setting up an actual airforce base near the intended target country would be quite involved. From finding a suitable space, transporting the airframes, parts and tools for maintenance, fuel, weapons, and personnel. While there is a threat to aircraft carriers it will always be safer and more cost effective due to their mobility and ability to be in the fight faster than setting up a land based air force base.
Zachary Schaller
As you said yourself, carriers are a floating air force base. Must I remind you that anything that floats can sink?
Also, the carrier's range is limited by the geography or an area, and whether or not there is water.
Additionally, you do realize even Sweden has the technology to sink a carrier, right?
D Liu Your point? I mean it’s pretty obvious the ships not invincible.
D Liu sonar and missle interception systems exist don’t you know that
D Liu you do know that test is nearly 20 years out of date right since by that logic why use surface ships at all since Submarines are the true kings of the oceans as they can do everything.
@seth, Did you know 12 years ago isn't 20 years at all? lol!
2015? Yup 3+ decade ye old French Saphir sinks the 2 sub escorts, the US carrier and 7 of it's surface fleet ships.
Kudo's go to the vintage 1960s Canadian submarine versus a entire US Carrier Battle Group ... Little sub wins! ;-)
The problem with smaller ships is shorter rotation, no matter which aspect you look at. Can you really establish a presence when you have to turn right around to resupply?
Better than history class 👌
Not the same and not really...you're moves are weak dude!
Play List what do you mean you rather be sitting in a boring classroom?
Play List The curriculum is so irrelevant it's absurd. I agree with OP
It depends on your history teacher and school. Keep in mind however that The Infographics Show is infamous for its errors in videos like these.
MineTurtle Using age to insult someone? Sorry for the hypocrisy but you might be 12.
The US be like: "Hey, we already have more carriers than the rest of the world combined. Let's build another 10 nuclear supercarriers!😶😂
Because we can!
To replace the current ones! Ships don't last forever
If you think tactically it makes sense.
Keith Watson the old ones are still better than the rest of the world!
Xenon Yeah but if you keep track of the US military, it's always lacking quantity, for 600B+ budge you'd except the US to have a lot but it's always replacing it's military equipments with new, better and improved stuff so they're gonna replace the carriers with the new super carriers like the Ford class.
Hi random person scrolling, I just wanna say have a nice day.
Sup
It’s 3 AM
Don't tell me what to do!
Thanks pal
Thanks
Every one of these videos now has that one guy in the comments telling you to have a nice day lol
They don't give a f*ck about our day, so do we about their channel 😂
@@keepsmiling5937 it's ok man, I care about you and everyone else in this comment section
At least is better than hate comments
Yes, they are a necessity in combat.
Commander Appo
That's what they said about battleships... until halfway through WWII.
@General Goldy not as much as our carriers in battles like midway which was a strictly carrier combat and cost the lives, ships, and planes on the Japanese sid. Also coral sea.
@@arkroyal actually the battle of midway had no American battle ships but did have 3 carriers the Japanese had two battle ships but lost the battle and as far as coral sea it was the first battle where the two fleets never saw each other strictly aircraft from you guessed it carriers this battle had no battle ships on either side. Two of the most important battles in the pacific.
the writing is already on the wall due to the rise of anti-ship missile tech by Russia and China. A2/AD doctrine combined with hypersonic missiles will do more than dull the "Tip of the spear" once they become fully operational in the coming years. Current missile tech already more than evened the playing field in the S China Sea
@@dliu4827 with respect I served on the USS Enterprise during a deployment back in 2007 while air craft in Bahgram air base were grounded because of a sand storm for about week through out that time my carrier was the only means of air support ground troops had in Afghanistan during the time so yes it is relevant
Yes. You do.
1. It's a mobile base. Thus can be relocated with relative ease.
2. They can carry a lot of supplies.
I.E. they can remain long term anywhere. They can repair vessels on site.
3. Derivative of both 1 and 2.
They can carrie Plains and their fuel everywhere.
4. your grammar needs to be fixed
@@Robloxchat123
I think you meant Spelling.
Spelling is inside words. Gramer between then.
And my spell check is really annoying.
fanOmry Carriers can't repair other vessels. Could they carry some spare parts? Maybe. Could they repair their aircraft? Most definitely, until they run out of parts for them. But you're not going to use an aircraft carrier to repair an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. You'd need a dockyard for permanent repairs and would likely conduct temporary repairs with a dedicated ship.
@@noname117spore strike forces can have said ships on hand, and most of the time they do, I forget the name of them but they are included as auxiliary vessels, in naval warfare ships perform "DC" or damage control to get the ship into working order rather permanent repairs, at all costs, a DC is suppose to prevent the ship from sinking, then patch repairs can be applied later so the vessel can be brought to a dock
@@noname117spore
You forget.
We now have 3DPs.
Instead of a lot of a larges inventory of each part. We can now print whatever part we need as long as we have the material.
And Cariers are *Huge.*
They have the room.
Well I bloody hope so Britain’s just made 2
Gexzo idk why i laughed so hard at this comment
Israeli Defense Forces true
Messyourself fan?
Lol the American carriers have already been proven wrong of their supposed invincibility numerous times, and they are way superior to Britains. HMS Queen Elizabeth, waste of 2 Billion pounds
Control of the sea lanes and the oceans will never be unimportant. US domination of sea and space is vital for western hegemony. I'm happy that the UK has built 2. To be a useful partner to our allies is not a bad thing
Love you infographics and you usually get everything spot on, I'm just being picky but don't forget ships also come equipped with CRAM's (counter rocket artillery and mortar) which are just huge miniguns, that shoot at projectiles coming towards a ship
Obviously, they are moving airfields that can strike targets at great distances, and provide supplies and medical needs to ground forces.
Just build islands with planes on it duh
That's dumb
Islands can't be moved around dummy
China is currently doing this.
Well I’m p sure he’s being sarcastic
How do people not know what a joke is?
I’ll save you 9 minutes. Yes
It has as much use as a lifted pickup truck. To show others your insecurities 🤣 (specifically those with small members) lmao
Of course we do, unless you can land a fighter on water
I have an idea, we build an airforce made entirely of puddle-jumpers
@@ArchesBro piper Cubs and beavers floating and flying around lol
Infographics- the best ya channel EVER YASS
Of course you need them. they're super valuable and just because new tech and tactics are starting up doesnt mean they're super obsolete suddenly. The US military already thinks of these things.
Aircraft carrier are still important but maybe we can create better defensive. Maybe one strategy that should be deploy before carrier get in range of these missile. Is for the aircraft carrier to deploy scouting aircraft. Then once the target have been located. Then send out stealth aircraft to precisely take out these defensive. Then once the raid are successful. Then bring in the aircraft carrier. The thing is that you don't haft to take out all of them just enough for the aircraft carrier to be less worry. Also for the aircraft just have some radar platform to spot the aircraft far away from the fleet. Then send intercepter to take out the aircraft before they get close to the fleet. That way the aircraft are reduce and the multiple cursor and destroyer can take care of the missile. Also I don't think you realize this but multiple destoyer and cursor this those type of defences are in each fleet. Also the carrier have it own defensive that can handle fast missile attacks. But also I definitely think we should build more smaller carrier so we can be more mobile and less reliatent on the super carriers.
China: "Modern missiles make aircraft carriers worthless."
Also China: "We have 4 more aircraft carriers in production, each one larger than the next!"
Yeah, China's anti-ship ballistic missiles are a paper tiger. China's ballistic missiles are less accurate against stationary targets than Russia or the US missiles. Hitting a moving target going 30knots, hundreds of miles away is astronomically harder, and require a high quality weapon's lock. The only feasible way is to have heavily networked systems, where an aircraft can send weapon a quality radar signature data to mid flight ballistic missile. That's a cluster f*ck when people are not trying to shoot you.
But, hell. Let's say China can get a good-enough networking system in place that works, they'd still have to get an aircraft within less than 100 miles of an aircraft carrier battle group, for a good length of time. Put simply, that would be suicide.
+A Artisan
Islands are unsinkable battleships, however I am skeptical. I think they are there to intimidate neighboring countries and steal resources. The longer they hold those islands, the longer it will be normalized, like how Russia has taken those Japanese islands to the north. Submarine control via low frequency coms is also a concern because the Chinese have a big underwater-entrance submarine base.
If you attack a fleet with a large fusilade of missiles, chances are it gonna hit.
this right in line with the ccp fake out campaign telling the world they are weak so they can build up the military and the world needs to be prepare too otherwise they might get the drop on us.
TheNinjaDC it is not hard to lock on a supercarrier i think caus it 330 meter long
yes,china is weak,So don't worry, you can continue to trample on China's sovereignty. Are you satisfied?
We already operate small specialized carriers. McCain even proposed a mix of large/small carriers. The small carriers get the day to day operations of mission support and force projection.
Yes we do that's the only way to transport planes
The first aircraft carriers in ww1 sucked,ww2 aircraft carriers were better but the deck was straight, a plane would probably skid across the deck and splash in the water an landing,modern aircraft carriers are better because they are bigger,Carrie more aircraft, and have a better deck shape that planes won't skid across it and splash in the water
No it's not, its the only reasonable way to launch planes form a ship. (planes can literally be transported by anything with enough room, just not launched from said ship, unless the planes are VTOl)
@@speedy01247 true but planes are bigger than the first ones
So how can we carrie a big bomber without aircraft carriers?
Planes can fly the bomber can fly and a large bomber wouldn't be able to take off from a ship they need miles of run way, the jets that take off from a ship are specifically designed to be able to handle that
@@alexhayter1193 that might be true but how many planes can lift a bomber?
We don't need to transport planes, they can fly across the oceans on their own. You forget about aerial refueling for smaller fighters but the bigger bombers have enough fuel to fly pretty much anywhere they want in this modern age. We havent transported planes with a carrier for a very long time. Now helicopters still need to be transported though.
Good video, a few thoughts on it:
1. China's ballistic missile force may be large, but the number of missiles designed to hit moving targets is much smaller.
2. Raytheon has tested an over the horizon shot with an SM-6 missile by using an F-35 to track the target and then send the track information by using MADL (the F-35's datalink), so the Navy may not be quite so vulnerable to low flying missiles.
That being said, I still question the utility of aircraft carriers for their cost. In theory, you can park one off of the coast of some country where you don't have basing rights and still project force, but in a peer conflict, carriers don't have enough or the right aircraft be able to go it alone without the support of land-based aircraft, and relying so heavily on your air defenses to defeat every single attack without fail seems risky. Land based airbases, for all their vulnerabilities, at least have some more options protect themselves, like hardened structures or dispersion of assets. In addition, even more novel approaches are possible, like hiding your air force on highway strips (or potentially even less) or building larger, longer range aircraft that can outrange all but the longest range ballistic missiles (which can be defended against with comparatively cheap air defense missiles).
If I had to make the decision, I would probably invest in stuff that functionally resembles the Soviet Kiev class aircraft carriers. Still a fully functional cruiser with all the air defenses, but a more flexible and cheaper strike option than TLAMs.
*Do We Still Need Wix?*
The answer is no.
but you can answer this question, using wix, have you ever wanted to create a website-
Yes. The argument that hypersonic cruise missiles is a red herring. Sure, they can be used as an area of denial effect weapon vs a CV. However, your navy will still get stomped in any blue water engagement without a CV. You lose so much scouting and strike capability that you might as well just not sail out. Also, they remain central as bases of operation for projection of power deployments. Without one, you will never be able to send a task force with against any country with an air force.
However, the question really is that should you really build supercarriers anymore. Or would it be better to build multiple small carriers so you don't put all your air power in 1 basket in any potential engagement.
Not even China or Russia expects to contest the US in blue water. But they will keep aircraft carriers several hundred miles away from their coast since land based airpower with cruise missiles will devastate any fleet that gets too close without its own land based airforce.
Me: Pffffff, Of Course We Do, What A Dumb Question.
Vsauce: Or Do We?
Me: Aircraft Carriers In This Modern Day Are Absolutely Dumb And Useless.
Lololol so true
vsauce can control your mind with just a few words
They are wrong.
And they do this shit a lot.
It's honestly make me distrust them.
Well it mostly depends on which continent you're in. In Indo-China or Southeast Asia naval warefare would be a big thing thus having a good airforce means you're not to be messed with
True
Aircraft Carriers were superior during WW2 just because planes could carry bombs and drop them on enemy ships while carrier herself is far away from battle and safe. Now the development of rockets after the WW2 allow striking even carriers from far away. I think ships lile Kirov-class Battlecruiser is future of the navy. Of course Kirov could be seen obsolete, but development would bring more powerful ships. Imagine heavy rocket attack on carrier from really far away, and Russia still claim their S400 cam shoot down F35. So why shouldn't they develope some air defence ship like S400? Carriers indeed will be obsolete
If your reading this, your probably living a better life than alot of people. Appreciate it.
Sad but true
God bless you
True that’s why I’ve sold my ballsack to Nigeria so they can find out why I was given sperm in the first place for $10000
im eating cereal about to tread my way to high school
my life is bad
You're also probably living a much worse life than a lot of other people.
Love your videos Infographic!
This is getting very high quality 👌👌
in terms of animation, yes, in terms of information distribution, you might as well be watching CNN
How? Several of the "facts" were wrong EG 3.03 the USA was first. Nope look at the Wiki page. Even that got it right.
i never thought a single simple comment can start a argument
Commentary for the video waa good but the "infographics" were off. A stealth drone was presented as a "tanker", a modern seaplane was used in place as a ww1 seaplane, a british spitfire with its landing gear lowered was bombing pearl harbor, etc.
Imagine someone making a mini golf course around that carrier...
you know someone played airsoft on a carrier right
The Swedish Gotland-class submarine has beaten US Nimitz class carrier groups in multiple war games.
In all war games played, a single sub was able to get past the escorting Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates and score multiple hits on the carrier AND get away safely.
Important fact to note is that this Diesel powered sub costs less than a single F-35 warplane. It has completely changed the field of Naval warfare.
There is little or no defense against ultra quiet Diesel subs using Stirling engines.
They are cheap to build and you can be sure that the US's enemies have taken note of this as a possible way to overcome the US Naval might.
So you were WRONG on 2 firsts, the British were the first to use military sea planes lowered by crane as reconnaissance just prior to ww1 and the first practical flat top was the British HMS Argus.
The first plane to take off from a ship was from a united states destroyer. The first dedicated flat top aircraft carrier was the hosho from japan
I didn't say dedicated, I said practical, the Argus completed in 1918 and was a converted Italian ocean liner; cancelled due to the war the the British converted her. The Hosho was completed in 22. The first flight from a stationary ship was from the USS Birmingham, which was a CRUISER, the first flight from a moving ship the British Charles Sampson from the HMS London was BUT AGAIN I didn't say first flight, I said first military use, i.e. what he refereed to in the video.
And while we are at it almost every major development in aircraft carrier design was made by the British, the plane arrest system, the steam catapult, the full deck with tower, the hurricane bow, the armoured deck to name but a few, oh and radar!
@clifton, totally fake US news propaganda.
First aircraft carrier designated ship was the Foudré in 1911 remember?
Well before flattops both cruisers and battleships we're launching planes off it's deck with catapults.
of we need it because CV is the only one that can spot enemy warships (i guess SS can help the spotting too)and can deal heavy damage to them
Love the consistency with this channel, has both quality and quantity
Good Jk.
THE XPRT GAMER Wish they got statistics right though
Thank you! 🧡
Love the transition.. from content delivery to advertisement..
Smooth
We need a thanos car
Yas
So glad u are back!
yes they look cool
that’s all the reason why we need to keep them
flat tops
I think they should try smaller carriers in larger numbers. Smaller carriers would be possible with the f35 as it is a VSTOL and does not require a launch catapult or arresting wires.
Do We Still Need Aircraft Carriers?
for smaller conflicts. hell yeah. air power!
for WW3? best they disarm and become the world's coolest cruise ships
Very unlikely actually, as while China has a plan of attack, it's not perfect and most of the rest of the world is under equipped to fight them.
speedy01247
Yet Sweden, a country who hardly places any value on its military, successfully built a submarine capable of sinking a US carrier (and the US admitted it after that "happened" during a simulated drill).
@Free Speech
*stare with disgust*
Everytime people are arguing about a matter dedicately and suddenly there is a guy/girl that incite hate about things outside of this topic.
@Free, Better 60000ish Muslims then that silly country who let 35+ million walk across their border.
@Free Speech you're obsessed
"Airborne Early Warning" * renders E-3 instead of E-2 *
"1941 Pearl Harbor sneak attack" * renders RAF Spitfire *
"1942 Battle of Midway" * renders fantasy tri-engine planes *
* Multiple CVN-78 of varying wardrobe sizes * * animates F-18 landing on carrier bow *
* talks about modern missile technologies * * renders a squadron of WW2 RAF Spitfires *
They asked the same question for battleships XD
no they didnt
battleships are useless in modern warfare, yes, but they still tried to modernize them with VLS cells, helicopter pads, and CIWS, but they still proved useless, and outrageously expensive
@@Robloxchat123
Can these defense systems intercept artillery shells?
@@greatwarships2758 yes that's what it's made for it can stop bombs shells and missiles
@@Robloxchat123
Bombs and missiles tend to be a lot slower and larger than shells. It would be a lot harder to shoot down artillery shells.
@@greatwarships2758 look up what AEGIS is capable of, it is designed to stop anything from hitting their vessel or other vessels, a shell will be no match for 60+ point defense CIWS 30mms
1. Planes don't land on the prow of a ship. Change your animations.
2. There are defensive systems aboard carriers you are not privy to.
Unless the enemy's weapon is nuclear, a 100% casualty rate when ship sinks is highly unlikely. The Sheffield had 250 personal on board, only 20 died when it sunk.
A little bit of modification on these carriers can make them function as mini airport. Which ll be useful in remote areas and can help developing countries.
3:25 hmmmm a spit in pearl harbor
Japanese Empire, British Empire, it's all the same, right?
@@bjmccann1 yes and no
Well they both like to drink tea.
@@stanlim9182 😃😃😃
Not to mention, missile defenses are getting better. The addition of LaWS to ships can possibly help combat this modern problem
No count for the constant awac surveillance systems no count for the routine Patrol that is in constant flight no count for classified weapons and Battlefield awareness equipment no count for the vast military satellites in position over any given area. Going to have to say there's a whole lot of holes in this personal assessment of yours. And also like to add there's a whole lot more than just one Aegis ship guarding that supercarrier you mentioned nothing about the rest of the task force.
Yeah there is the CWIS, sea sparrows, and subs too
Or the Russian subs with torpedoes that can do 200mh underwater and launch cruise missiles from underwater and unlike the old ones are now so silent a nato taskforce that was closely following one completely lost it. Their new subs can run so silent they couldn't find it in open water, just think how noisy it is with all those escort ships around.
@@Jake12220 it may be able to go 200 miles an hour but first it's got to make it within a 5-mile radius to even have a chance. On top of that they are only capable of shooting in a straight line non maneuverable. They would have to get in a lot closer than 5 miles undetected to shoot it. Ahead of every task force and Within it are dedicated assets who's so purpose is to locate and detect hard targets beneath the Seas with a vest array of capabilities. I'm not saying it would be impossible for them to get a Kill. but they most certainly would be destroyed immediately. And most certainly would not be taking out a carrier due to its limited explosive best it can hope for is a smaller Destroyer or frigate possibly a sub if they can detect or find one of ours. It most certainly won't be a game changer not up against the most advanced and highly trained men and women of the US Navy call me biased if you want. but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. They can talk and show off pound the chest and rattle the Sabor but that's all we will ever see from Russia. No real threat to the us anymore and haven't been for decades.
Didn't a Swedish sub sink a US carrier in some war games?
@@MRB2580 I wouldn't say sunk it but did get a firing Solution on it. Maybe you're not understanding how hard it is to sink a carrier. Even our World War II carriers we're tough as he'll to sink. And I think most of them were sunk buy us rather than repaired them. But I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just telling you there's no Navy out there that can withstand the might or share number of u.s. Navy asset available nor the training in conflict experience that the US has.
Just a side note compared to 2300 US casualties, Afghans lost over 110 000 people , over 30 000 being civilians.
I guess he was talking about loss in the US army.
dont you just hate comments saying first
oh yeah and first
Yesreg _ good one
Yesreg _ I am afraid that I have to dislike this comment because I do in fact hate comments that say, “first”.
Yesreg _ Very nice joke.
Have a cookie
3:55 on the right ish, the jet landing from the front, M8 thats not how you land. also there is more than just a single destroyer protecting the carriers, and the carrier does have some anti air defense, and if a nuclear launch platform was firing at a carrier, a nearby strike force would take them down and a fighter would be launched to intercept the missile.
04:43 But earth is flat
Nice b8 m8
no if the earth was flat we wouldn't have mountains
Ships since ancient marine times have been sailing off the edge of the Earth and they still haven't learnt the lesson to this very day!
Are are you seriouse?
*Are You Sure About That?*
Yes. We still need Aircraft carriers But we need more defensive armaments on carriers. Possibly even bring back the battleship just for the defense platform the 16 inch gun could be retro fitted and re imaged as a shot gun for small incoming threats.
Imagine how much furries we could burn on the deck in one go?
better yet, imagine launching an AGM at a furry convention
Theres two major mistakes in this infographic:
1.) Most sea skimming cruise missiles are subsonic, meaning that they travel slower than the speed of sound. Which is ideal for such a missile as it grants them greater maneuverability and stealth when approaching the target.
2.) Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds greater than mach 5. And by the very nature of hypersonic flight, they cannot be sea-skimming as the extreme heat of air friction at those speeds would essentially melt them down unless they were flying at much higher altitude and then diving down once they were over their intended target.
Aircraft carriers will only works if enemies don't have radars or defense mechanism . It will works if opponents lacks air power , and lacks missile tech . Moving onto enemies near den hole will make aircraft carrier vulnerable , so in brief it can be used to low level military ranking countries like Iraq, Afghanistan etc not for attacking or threatening military powers . USA doing freedom of navigation in SC with carriers , striker groups and it has never worked and in fact it made Chinese more aggressive .
China knowing no one had surface forces made them more aggressive. In 1996 when the PRC threatened the ROC and the USN deployed two CVSGs the PRC backed down. They felt humiliated. THAT is why they want carriers to threaten their neighbors as they have.
Sorry complete fake news and fake comment ...
US is a non signatory to UNCLOS. If the US is doing FON it is doing fake FON at best.
That's like men saying WE are having a baby.
you clearly don't know the purpose of aircraft carriers, or how naval combat works
Ayeee new video! I love ur channel guys. Keep the great work! You’re one of the best channels I have came across a while ago!
Nahh throw that shit away, you don't need'em
One US aircraft carrier (Gerald R Ford for example) can technically be classified as a US state.
@Israeli Defense Forces
McDonald's doesn't have the ability to project US military power all across the world and can also hold 60-90 aircraft at a time depending on what is on-board.
or store a nuclear reactor the size of a house
USE DA HELICARRIER
Try using a few light carriers as carriers for tankers and several dozens of light carriers for air superiority fighters and act in front of the super carriers.
Why am I watching this
Beacause you clicked on it
*wack*
Like you said technology is ever changing and missiles aren't just the easiest to advance. They are also the easiest to make counter measures against.
Planes fly why carry them
NASA wants to: *_Know you location_*
FBI: *_Bich stay where u are_*
Pentagon; *_Did you stole our information?_*
The same can be said for babies
Are you trolling? No one can be this stupid lol
clifton james obviously
@@cliftonjames785 r/whooooooooooosh
Small CVs are good.However,you have to bear in mind that there would be a lot of aircrafts up in the air,making the air space tight and potentially be dangerous (as the air traffic controller has to communicate with different controllers who are onboard of other ships) when catapulting and landing.More ships will make commanding a fleet more complicated and small CV with limited hanger size will have no aircrafts before a big one (If both CVs lose a plane every 20mins).
Short answer: idk... lmfao
short answer, yes
Im late. I know. We do need supercarriers. tell ya why: 1. They are great command posts for ground, air and sea commanding.
2. They provide great air support
3. They have multiple destroyers with them, so they can fight off missles.
¡Hola! Saludos desde Venezuela.
Can you talk about the comunism dictatorship here? Why has the richest country in the world collapsed?
Richest? Lol what are you smoking Camarada?
Carl Perl bitcoin
mano eres una de las viejas del cafetal
the soviet union was not the richest country in the world
ultimate shota It was close enough but he talks about Venezuela.Was ever Venezuela the richest country?
that's a very good idea, so make more flat decks as like pit stops along the ocean or floating base platforms
*Avengers assemble*
Yup all 11 of them. ;-)
Carriers just need to be outside the kill range or a safe location, the move out of it during an offensive operation. Carriers have lots of functions, that nothing so far can fully replace.
Exactly I also feel that the ideal size of modern aircraft carriers will be akin to French Charles D Gaul carrier. 1 squadron of fighters and extreme manuverbility with moderate offensive/ defensive weapon systems.
When they mentioned smaller carriers, anyone else think a large carrier surrounded by small carriers and battleships? I doubt that would work but it would sure look cool.
I wish you would get to the point faster. I waited for the entire first half of the video, four minutes, while you unnecessarily summarized the entire history of the aircraft carrier. Then, finally, you addressed the topic.
You didn't talk about the Phalanx CIWS at all, these are a close-in weapons system for defense against antiship missiles.
I guess the better questions are 1: what is the Largest Aircraft & what is the minimum size for Carriers to accommodate for them? 2: could there be Modernized Battleships that could counter any anti-carrier weapons?
Yes, because if a war breaks out it is basically a mobile command centre with availability of aerial vehicles landing and taking off, so if a military base needed to be set up in the case of emergency such as a war, it would be cheaper and faster to drive a military base with an airfield to a war than to construct one
Or America could just default on its debt and cause another Great Depression
With missile technology being what it is, carriers are floating targets, one you can locate one, a saturation attack with heavily damage them or sink them completely
ACs can be very useful in bumanitarian aid missions and in asymmetric conflicts.
They might be vulnerable in a conflict between well equiped nations.
Let's not forget about the CRAM and other anti aircraft/munitions weapons that are onboard ships. Those CRAM's are definitely nothing to mess with.
Despite the multiple problems with this video, let me point out the most blatantly obvious one.
So if “16-20 strike aircraft” could “easily overwhelm” a carrier strike group, then wouldn’t a ship that carried around 45 strike aircraft be *extremely* powerful in naval combat?
And besides ship-to-ship combat, aircraft carriers are still very useful for multiple other tasks. Air interception, EM Warfare and HARM strikes, airborne early warning, air support for land invasions, and ASW capability (obviously all of this is through the use of the aircraft it carries). A destroyer or guided missile cruiser simply cannot do all of that.
Love infographic narration. But why isn't there any actual images?
To argue into this piece: its takes 5 hours to fly across the Atlantic and 8-10 hours across the pacific. It requires a lot of fuel and planning for anything other then strategic bombers to make it across the world. The normal flying hours of the F18 is about 5 hours. Aircraft carriers shortening the distance and the need to refuel.
A few years ago there was talk about bringing back dirigibles as carriers (possibly drone carriers), so America doesn't need land-based airfields to provide air superiority to extremely in-land forces.
I can only hope it's the glorious return of the best vessel: THE ZEPPELIN!
None of the factors in this video were specific to aircraft carriers. They were all concerns about the operation of ships in general. If anything, the concerns the video raised apply least of all to aircraft carriers, since they don't need to get close to shore to do their job. An amphibious ship needs to get very close to shore, a gunship needs to get close enough to see and hit targets, but an aircraft carrier doesn't need to be remotely close to a target area to send planes there.
Yes we need carriers. Air superiority and aerial recon are essential in any type of warfare. Also carrier strike groups enable America to project power in a short amount of time. If anything, I'd say battleships are becoming obsolete.
The main problem with Ballistic Missiles is they can destroy a large stagnant target like cities and bases. Aircraft Carriers are useful still because they are mobile air bases. The launcher has to be exceptionally lucky to hit the target at the right place at the right time. Carriers are constantly moving and don't stay on the same course so it's difficult if not impossible to take down a carrier thousands of miles away.
If you’ve played any Civ games, you know they’re crucial to taking out opponents that are far from you
You are a very good animator Man.
It's a shame that when you listed the aircraft types, there were no aerial refueling platforms. The Navy uses the F/A18 Super Hornet as an aerial refueler, which consumes aircraft fatigue life expectancy much more quickly than other missions. As one naval flight officer said... “The Navy has painted itself into a corner with Super Hornet tankers. The mission eats up fatigue life at a ridiculous rate, and there is something really, really stupid about using your most capable strike platform as a tanker.”
Pretty sure HMS Hermes was the first actual aircraft carrier. The British were responsible for most modern day tactics still used on aircraft carriers to this day, they also designed the catapult used on aircraft carriers.
I hope we keep making more. we need to be the biggest, and the toughest. To the point where no country can beat us
2:18 That's a damned sturdy airplane!
You know wars are often fought with obsolete weapons and tactics, so this is not new, The Aegis ships are supplemented by Hawkeye radar equipped air command and control aircraft which fly high and can see over the horizon, so at to give a heads up to the destroyers defending the carrier. And we do have smaller carriers like the America class assault ships, so there is that. But to generate the sotie rate needed in combat you would need a lot more baby flat tops to equal one supercarrier and as happened at Midway were Japan lost all four of her carriers in one day, the same could apply to losing a flottita of small carriers and the escortes ships as well.
Not very light but it must have 10 to 18 fighters, 3-4 helicopters and 1 or 2 Hawkeyes
I've always wondered myself about the necessity of carriers in the modern age. I think their roles can be reduced. I can understand their need in the WW1/2 era as they literally extend the reach and accuracy of an assault on a target using attack planes. Those attack planes of old are the equivalent (somewhat) to a smart bomb or missile of today so I am not sure we need that purpose built into carriers anymore when we have the technology of very smart and long range missile attack capabilities. Maybe carriers of today should be re-purposed using planes for reconnaissance, and electronic jamming and submarine hunting. They can have more missile load-outs and less planes for attack roles.
Yes they are good for combat and cool to have !