The Future of the Navy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Sponsored by World of Warships!
Try it out today - wo.ws/38ee6py
New Players receive 700 doubloons, 1,000,000 Credits, 7 days of premium time, AND the USS Charleston & Japanese Ishizuchi when you use code:
READY4BATTLE2020
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/...
Discord - / discord
For Business Inquiries - gregr1251@gmail.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
INS Hanit Image
Author: Israel Defense Forces
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
HMS Sheffield Image
Author: Nathalmad
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
DF-26 Image
Author: IceUnshattered
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
Battle of Latakia Image
Author: Lohe & user:lilyu
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en
When torpedoes first emerged there was the exact same argument made. The French developed the Jeune Ecole which basically argued that they only needed torpedo boats and with their weapons they could bring down the whole British fleet.
It didn’t and the destroyer was developed to counter them. I suspect we will develop a new class of ship to do the same thing. It will likely take another decade but they should come.
At the time of the Jeune École the argument is sound, most of the Pre-dreadnoughts of the era would sink within one torpedo hit or two and the engagement distance and accuracy is very low.
The thing is torpedo boat didn’t disappear, rather the destroyers that was supposed to counter them became a bigger and better version of them. I suspect the same would happen again with ships arming themselves with bigger and better missiles
Right on, good point. Eb and flow
Not if we destroy our self in the process
@@krisfrederick5001 Sure too bad no one is that dumb to believe torpedoes emerge. We all know torpedoes are submerged, lmao!
Remember there are ships out there already with laser gatling cannons. ;-)
Hypersonics can't be fired until after the fleet is found. One of the reason Space Force was created was to develop weapons and tactics that will be used to destroy ship detecting satellites. Carrier Battle Groups can stay 500+ miles off shore and bomb the shit out of a country as long as their location isn't know to within a 100 mile radius.
Make a video of the defensive capabilities of the Salvation Army
Chicken Soup Helsing Ultimate Abridged already did a great cover of that
Ya never know. The Cali National Guard just got called up to help with the soup kitchens. This keeps up we'll have Green Berets embedded inside hobo camps.
The Paramilitary branch is feared world wide
they only have "Oppressive Capabilities".
😂😂😂
Everyone's known for years the future of the navy is sharks with frickin laser beams...
Tsubadai Khan 💯💯💯💯💯
Almost spit out my drink while reading this hahahaha
"Every creature deserves a warm meal."
Doctor Evil agrees , )
😄😄😄
Everyone knows that the future of naval warfare is mind controlled giant squids
Yuri wants to know your location
*INSUFFICIENT FUNDS*
KIROV REPORTING
Fail
And dolphins
The reason the Stark "failed to engage" the missile was the geometry of the vessel: the one and only system was on the wrong end of the Frigate therefore couldn't "see" the target.
The Stark switched its gear into Standby mode. Even the chaff laucher wasn't ready. The CO,XO and OOD IIRC never moved to unmask the 3 inch or CWIS. Hence why even after saving the ship, the CO and XO were relieved. The XO was in CIC IIRC.
Well it failed right? Of course there is a reason why it did, but it still failed.
Same with that Israel ship he mentions. It was switched off at the time. The fact remains that it didnt do what it was suppose to do, which is protect the ship.
@@grobbs666 The system didn't fail since it was improperly operated. It's called operator error.
All engages were failures. That already says something.
exocet's werent even picked up by main radar! I knot that CIWS has its own integrated radar but anyway....
Hypersonic weapons all gangsta, until directed energy comes along...
Hypersonic weapons are inherently hardened against high temperatures and have a very short time between detection and impact, also, as they are kinetic, they only need fragments to reach the ship to cause severe damage. The problem is compounded if they carry a nuclear warhead.
Unsubtle Major Dictator that’s if you use infrared energy, that’s too slow a method for defeating a missile. Also hypersonic weapons are very much detectable from above using infrared sensors the shear speed it travels create more heat than its own engine exhaust at the tip of the missile.
Firstly the best direct energy concept is using plasma double layers trapped in it’s own magnetic field. The trouble is proving the double layer with enough energy to remain stable until it hits the target. Plasma accelerated through a device similar to a rail gun theoretically can achieve 5-10% the speed of light which is far in excess of instantaneous when compared with the meager closing speed of even re-entry vehicles.
Hypersonic weapons like all kinetic weapons will be obsolete in 20 years. So if Russia and China have any sense they should use their minuscule advantage now while they can.
@@manofcultura 'Obsolete in 20 years', famous last words. Kinetic weapons are likely here to stay for the long haul. Weapon diversification is the future, lasers will feature prominently but they won't replace whats already well in use.
@@jwadaow Fake news. Source please in the 'hardening'?
Dictators spouting propaganda are not allowed in the free world. ;-)
@@manofcultura So you hide behind your fake name with some BS claims?
That only proves your unnamed s-hole country is waiting for direct energy weapons civilized countries already have.
If you cannot shoot down any and all hypersonic weapons in the air, space and deep space you need to stay home.
This just shows we’ve never gotten over throwing rocks at each other, we’ve just gotten *real* good at it.
Nah... Look at India and Chinese. They had a fight with rocks and stones a few weeks ago.
@@tsar_zo8007 That's true and an Indian officer died as a result of that rock throwing incident. The Indian troops were so enraged by this that they invaded Chinese territory and proceeded to kill a number of Chinese soldiers often in hand to hand combat. About 20 Indian soldiers ended up dying due to exposure in the mountains but they killed many more Chinese. China tried to keep this as quiet as possible but it got leaked out in the news as 20 Indian soldiers dying.
To be fair if you didn't get good at it the ones who did would end up owning you (oftentimes literally)
@@abrahkadabra9501 every one is quite unsure what happened
Cuz projectiles are OP
Back in the 1920s and 1930s, most military strategist believed it was basically "impossible" to intercept a fleet of bombers. Then came radar.
What fleets of bombers were there in the 1920's?
@@gourmetbanana There had already been small-scale aerial bombing in World War 1. Intelligent observers could see that in a future war this would be on a much larger scale. For example, Italian General Giulio Douhet (who later briefly became Mussolini's minister of aviation) published a book in 1921 called "Command of the Air" which proposed that a future war - for example between Germany and France - would begin with vast fleets of bombers pulverising each other's factories and cities. The book was translated into English and widely studied in British and American military circles.
"Squidward, the robots are running the Navy!"
"NOT THE NAVY!"
More like the end of the Marine Corps’ tanks.
Also everyone in the comments is suddenly a missile engineer and surface warfare expert who’s graduated from the Navy Postgraduate school.
That's an usual thing pal. Everywhere is the same
@Drew Peacock
> if the arguments make sense
> backed up with credible sources
> UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/hnWAcaCMIUg/v-deo.html
@Drew Peacock You wound me and my feeble brain with your words good sir! I don't think I'll ever recover. But I submit the following, all your words:
> feeble brain
> if you want expert comments, go to an expert forum
> there's nothing wrong with civilians throwing in their 2 cents
"This is YT". Again, your words not mine. I don't need to have an immaculately worded thesis refuting what you said and neither do you. As for me, I am an expert in the Socratic Paradox. What about you sir?
How banal of you to insult me on a UA-cam comments section. Kinda cliche.
@Drew Peacock
> I'm sure you'll get over it.
How *dare* you! How dare you have the utter gall to assume that I will overcome such a dastardly personal attack in this enlightened and progressive age we live in. Shame on your sir. Shame on you.
> you do need to deliver a valid counter-argument
You miss my point; no I don't.
> Me? I'm not an expert in anything
Clearly.
> But I wasn't mocking people, you were.
OK. That's cool.
> What are YOU an expert in?
Haven't we been over this?
I don't have to prove anything to you, you said it yourself, you want expert comments, go to an expert forum. Here you may deal with all of my unqualified comments, comments that waste your time, and pointless prattle. I don't recall anything in the UA-cam terms of service specifying I need to "deliver a valid counter-argument". What fucking world do you live in? Can't you recognize the fact that I don't have to do anything you insist I do? I didn't even say I disagree about civilians putting in their two cents.
I don't know about you, but I will continue to mock whom I want. Just as you will likely continue to waste your time.
@Drew Peacock
> There's no "clearly" about it, since I didn't state anything that demonstrates a lack of any knowledge. I simply challenged your idiotic initial comment where you mocked people for no good reason.
And you are free to do so just as I am free to make it. What do you want from me? A counter-argument with credible sources? I don't have to do anything of the sort on a UA-cam comment thread.
> Yeah and you still haven't provided an answer.
I have already answered this. I said I am an expert in the Socratic Paradox. And thereafter you noted that you are an expert in nothing.
> So you admit you're not an expert in anything then?
Actually, I am an expert in using MS Paint. But it's a God awful program. GIMP is much better, and unlike Photoshop is free.
> Of course there isn't anything like that in the YT terms of service, what an idiotic comment.
You see? Exactly my point. I do not need to post anything non-idiotic if I don't want to. I owe you nothing. And you owe me nothing.
> if you don't admit you're a non-expert like everyone else then you have no credibility whatsoever.
I need to establish credibility by admitting I have none? Like everyone else? Please, describe for me in detail, where in this comments section people declare they have no credibility, and then proceed to detail facts and "opinions" on weapon systems, doctrine, and what the future holds. I would like to see such comments. Moreover, why do I need to declare my credibility or lack thereof to everyone, when it can be easily discerned. You have a brain, and you can think for yourself whether Stinger913 is a credible or incredulous source of information on UA-cam.
> If that doesn't mean that civilians shouldn't comment, then what the fuck does it mean you condescending prick?
It means non-experts shouldn't act like they know everything on missiles and surface warfare, unless they've actually studied it. Preferably in a peer reviewed body, or through direct experience. This is not mutually exclusive to being a civilian, unless you're too daft to understand that.
> Like I said, you're a prick.
Indeed.
> You clearly get off on trying to appear more educated than others when you're a civilian like everyone else. And even if you WERE an expert, that's still no reason to be condescending.
No. If you understood the Socratic Paradox, I know that I am uneducated, and much less educated than others in this world. I just know that it is cringeworthy to see people fapping about hypersonic missiles, lasers, and anti-torpedo torpedos. These people act like they know that X will be a game changer, when in reality they know little of how X will actually be operated, and what the results will be. The sad reality is that it is all hypothetical. Not the concept of these weapons, but the speculation. That the laser will be a "game changer" per se in surface warfare. No one actually knows if it will be a revolution in the nature of naval warfare or not because it hasn't entered mass production yet. It hasn't seen widespread use in a combat environment. What unexpected failures will come across? I doubt the giddy military speculators foresaw the Zumwalt class not being able to use its guns. The experts are debating among themselves whether a VLS on the outside of the hull will actually improve survivability. Those actually studying the matter, are much more qualified to speculate on it. People of course, or 'civilians' as you seem to say, are free to speculate. You see? I have said it. Go nuts. But it's funny to see people act like they know, and that's all it will ever be, speculation. Finally, if I were an expert, it would be all the more reason to be condescending.
No mention on how awacs defeats the purpose of sea skimming missiles. As they can be detect much further away.
No every navy has carrier-born AWACS platforms though.
Truth Mattison USN does
@@ignaciohavok1 Even smaller carrier navies like Spain and Italy have AWACS heli's for this purpose..... and French carrier operates the E-2 as well
AWACS are extremely vulnerable. You can’t expect them to survive contact with an equally strengthed opponent.
You grossly overestimate the effectiveness of offensive weapons against ships. Just because you launch a missile doesn't mean it hits its target, even if the target does nothing to defend itself. Missiles need help targeting. That's a big weak link. Ballistic missiles aren't going to hit a moving ship if their targeting satellites get knocked out or jammed.
you can build thousands of missiles with the price of one ship
@@vitorgas1 They're one-time use, though. And how effective are they? Can they hit their target? Do they even have the means to detect and target a ship? If they have it, can the US destroy that capability before they use it? There are many experts working on this sort of thing, and this general, or whatever his rank was, isn't one of them.
@@gardnert1 the ship is just a platform. It's weapons are one time use just the same.
@@googleisillukinati8071 "Just" a platform... that can carry its weapons much closer and fire from an unknown position, collect and relay sensor data to other ships, fire guns offensively, and intercept incoming missiles. They can carry men and armored vehicles. They can carry aircraft who can launch hundreds of sorties dropping hundreds of bombs. They can be submarines and sneak up on enemy ships, or get close to launch missiles and then sneak away, immune to any missile.
Ships control sea space. Missiles do not. In a war against China, they will be instantly blockaded and their land-based missiles will be useless to change that, even if they worked perfectly. We can easily sit out ships outside the range of their missiles and fire cruise missiles to hit stationary targets, which would include their satellite uplinks that they need to feed their missiles targeting data. We can also attack their radar sites making them blind. We can attack their ports making it impossible to service their navy ships. We can attack airfields so they can't take off any aircraft. We can attack their POL storage so they run out of fuel. We can attack their bridges and dams to inhibit their movement. We can do all of these things and more, just with our ships. Meanwhile their missiles would be sitting on their launchers, unfired because they're either out of range or have no targeting data to guide them.
I was wondering the same. How’s a Ballistic missile be hard to defend against if you can move? I know they can be course-corrected, but even then, a system like the iron-dome can calculate the trajectory of a missile in milliseconds.
As much as it's technically an isolated incident there has been a case of a surface-to-air missile successfully engaging an anti-ship missile when in 1991 during the first Gulf War a British Sea Dart anti-aircraft missile from the destroyer HMS Gloucester successfully took out an Iraqi Silkworm missile intended for USS Missouri, also the sinking of HMS Sheffield by an Argentinian air-launched Exocet in 1982 was more complicated than simply not having adequate defensive armament.
The USS Stark had CIWS/Phalanx in standby mode while cruising the Persian Gulf. It’s not a failure of the system as you stated. It was a failure of command that it wasn’t active while cruising potentially hostile waters. That’s why the captain was relieved. CIWS can track 100 targets at once, but in standby mode, it won’t track anything.
After pearl harbour, American Naval command gave an impossibly short amount of time to technicians to repair the fleet. But necessity is the mother of all invention and people get super creative in times of war. For this reason I don't fully accept the idea that nations only really have what they have at the beginning of a war nowadays.
Yeah it really depends on how long the war is. And how well the industry can adapt
Cheaper and more effective to develop anti-ship that having a fleet of ships.
How do you protect convoys?
You are stuck in your controlled space, Carriers can roam the oceans and attack from many directions and hide it the millions of sq miles of ocean. But with hyper velocity rail guns and 1/2 megaton and soon multi megawatt lasers missiles will have no chance.
This guy knows nothing, all battle groups keep AWACS air born at all times giving plenty of time of warning even with hyper sonic missiles.
Obviously you have no military experiance. The quote is the best defence is a good offense. You can not win if you only fight defensly. But you csn not win without a good defence too. Unless you are a communist you do not strike first. You hit back only after being hit. That is what MAD is all about.
Peace only occurs when there is no benefit from seizing or attempting to seize resources. That is a primary history lesson. There would be a benefit of seizing Crimea by the Russians because their geopolitical opponents did not want a major war. Similarly, the Falklands remain British because it would be too much of a cost for the Argentinians to seize it besides the Falklands not offering what Crimea offered to the Russians. Places like Costa Rica do not have a major navy and can grow economically with trade on the European and Asian sea basins because America patrols the seas.
@peace leader no, you are condescending despite being misinformed. Furthermore, placing words in my mouth rather than discussing the topic does not win you any awward but cloisters you into your mindset. You aren't here to learn or to discuss so I am not going to bother any further.
You know if navy going to end, all we need to do is put a "space" in front the navy word then they will be fine.
“Not the Navy!”
Looking forward to this one. I've been a fan of your content for quite some time. Thanks for what you do.
Dont give this guy too much credit. Hes a sweaty nast neck bearded simp that loves to sh** on his own country. He never looks at the bigger picture. He always trys to pit america against the world when in reality it would be all of NATO and the US. This guy is an idiot most of the time.
@@followthegrow108 Fake name anti American troll pretends to know reality and namecalls like a child, lmao!
@@followthegrow108 what 3 braincells and unchecked nationalism does to a mf
Concerning the Mk15 CIWS failures in combat... in the old days the weapons officers did not trust their crews, and many a C.O. would not permit the weapon to be placed in battery to defend the ship. THAT is why the Stark wore two Exocet missiles. The crew was so untrained that the Lookout actually saw the launch of the weapon and watched the 'blue light' fly most of the way to the ship before he made his report to the OOD feet away on the Bridge. Today, the Mk15 CIWS IS in battery, cables hooked up, and firing sector hold-back tool withdrawn. We are much better equipped and ready today. With the advent/introduction of the RAM/SeaRAM the engagements are further out at about 5 miles instead of 1 mile. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is the 'Cat's Meow" for this job with its longer range (20nm), larger warhead (over 80lbs HE), and is faster (Mach 3+).
John Smith The US backed off? We killed their most important general and Iran in return fired missiles into the sand. 😂
John Smith the only thing jellified here is your tiny brain. We already hit one of Iran’s most important target and turned that POS into fried salami. That’s a fact you fuck boy. 😂
@John Smith
"I sooo seriously doubth this. Why? Trump backed off an attack..."
I stopped reading there.
@John Smith Yeah, Iran with it's vast fleet of speedboats and civilian helicopters is terrifying! You're probably the type that pisses themselves over a car alarm. But hey, they did wreck a plywood mock-up of a US carrier! You're a pathetic fucking shill, and I would tell that to your face in front of your soy-fueled squad of bitches chucklefuck.
@@mike7652 millennium challenge 2002. Look it up. Your entire navy got smashed by speedboats and motorcycle messengers.
3:27 "Electronic countermeasures, along with Jeff, have been a mainstay in defending naval vessels," Who is Jeff and how is he so powerful?
You should watch community. Jeff can be very persuasive
As far as i know, ships are still going to be relevant as land can be inefficient and air even more so in terms of transportation of mass goods. And as long as you need ships to transport stuff, youll need warships to protect those transports.
having such valuable/expensive ships like the US "super-carriers" has one major major darwback. Admirals won`t risk anything with these ships. so they mostlike be a token force during an conflict.
best example is WW1, where the Imperial german navy and the british navy avoided eachother for a very long time.
Carriers where so succesfull in WW2 because they where cheaper to build than battleships and aircrafts where even cheaper. so an attack with an carrier group in WW2 was a relative low risk, because in the grand scheme of things, aircrafts where expendable.
A trophy fleet that is nice to look at but no legit threat.
That's why I think Russia might end up winning a hypothetical naval war against the US. Their ships are fairly cheap compared to their American counterparts and they are loaded with many of the world's best anti-ship/anti-air missiles, CIWS and other weapons. They have and continue to build small warships like corvettes and destroyers with powerful missiles that can take a US carrier out of combat action in 1 or 2 good hits.
I agree that the US admirals would be too afraid to lose their carriers and would shelter them away from a lot of the action, making the ships near useless and a waste of money. I imagine that the US Navy would also be too cautious with their new Zumwalt destroyers. Russia can capitalize on this and put their warships to full use
@emosh73 yes u are right, but do u need 10-11 of them, for some powerprojection?
its extreme expensive luxury to maintain so many. iam not an navy expert, but 4-6 carriers seem to be enough i guess, so that u have allways 2 ready. 1 for atlantic/middle east and 1 for the pacific.
@@gOtze1337 That is like claiming Americans have enough guns so you gonna take them away.
Did you forget the number of carriers is in the US Constitution?
@emosh73 Yea Ford cannot launch one single fully loaded jet in the real world.
How is that usefull??
Can you post the official US Navy hull classification to this 'American class carriers'? I say there is no such thing and you made it up. ;-)
The Navy is as important as the Air Force and the Army.
Right now the Navy is just a big expensive target. Navies need to switch to smaller stealth ships that use thier small size and speed to simply not be there.
@FunnYfucker Aintyou ok so what about small/fast boats? It's been more or less shown that big ships are just big targets now.
I don't think The Navy have been very important in Afghanistan...
As long as it has a use and an effective one than it will be important.
Unless your country is landlocked.
That's why we have tactics..
Just a thought. You might see AirCraft Carriers get even bigger (mega carriers?). This would be done to launch even longer range airplanes/drones. Smaller carriers you run into an energy problem like your talked about. Smaller carriers smaller planes or less of them.
While it's true the smaller carriers will have energy problems, the fact is that this problem needs to be solved anyway because navies need to begin equipping smaller ships like destroyers and frigates with greater energy production. So maybe making smaller carriers will still be viable because the energy production will be a solved or mitigated issue. Also smaller planes might be the future, too, regardless of the size of carriers.
That or they get smaller because they're launching drones; or maybe the range increase will cancel out the space savings of being unmanned and they'll just use Fords for the next century.
Sorry your 'though' gives us no real design plans or even the start construction on some kinda ... mega carrier?
imgur.com/fxw0pdx
It's called an VLFS. I'm sure if the US could build it, it would be called mega something I agree.
Don't ask me what he talks about. I have no idea, lol!
4:21 So I had never heard of the attacks on the USS Mason, but on the short reading I did, there is no way the USS Mason got lucky and 9 missiles crashed or missed. At least a few of those had to be intercepted or negated by her defenses
Given the junkyard nature of most of the weapons used by the Houthi militia, it's equally likely the missiles failed en-route.
About the USS Mason, the ship did intercept the missiles
Its unclear if the missiles were intercepted or if they fell short on their own.
Iverson3 they fell short cause of the decoys... which sorta counts as interception
@@ignaciohavok1 not as interception, but as successful employment of countermeasures.
Ignacio Irurita Yeah like Rusher said not an interception but they still destroyed the missiles.
@@ZacParsonsComedy They were not intercepted and no employment of countermeasures.
news.usni.org/2016/10/10/destroyer-uss-mason-attacked-yemen
Is it unclear cos US sources are blocked in your 'country'? Do not read propaganda and fake news. Stick to the direct official sources from the USNI and USN itself. How hard can that be for someone with free internet and Freedom of Information as civil right?
You said the DS-26 can hit ships at 3000km, it can fly 3000km that doesn't mean it can hit a ship at the end. Ballistic missiles aren't new, range has never been an issue, accuracy has. And that's for fixed targets, never mind moving ones.
In the 1960’s it was predicted that military aircraft would disappear and be replaced by missiles. If a dispute happens at sea - navies will be required.
For a CIWS to work it needs to be both turned on and uncaged.
Are they usually turned off? What do you mean by uncaged?
Joe Friday ... for a Phalanx CIWS to work it requires the system to be kept powered up. Not shut off and de-energized. Additionally it needs to be uncaged. Another word for being armed so it will automatically fire at an unexpected incoming missile. It does no good to have a defense against attack emergency weapons system inoperative. I don’t know whether the USS Stark’s CIWS would have downed the two Exocet antiship missile if was operating. We do know it couldn’t by being shut off.
@@Idahoguy10157 Surely they wouldn't keep weapon systems turned off if their was a risk of conflict. But what do I know?
Where is the source for this information?
Joe Friday ... I’m pointing out an instance where a Phalanx CIWS had it been functional may have prevented USS Stark from being hit. The Stark was operating in a theater of war,. The Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war where ships were being attacked. I’ll reiterate... I don’t know if the Phalanx would have worked to stop the missiles. It hadn’t the opportunity
"In WWII the biggest guns of the battleships had a maximum range of 40 kms and a realistic effective range of much shorter."
The longest ranged anti-ship missiles may have a range of 300 miles to 1,000 miles, but their actual effective range is much shorter. .. These missiles need to have a continuous track from surveillance/reconnaissance assets on a fast moving carrier, and these surveillance/recon assets will be physically or electronically attacked if they get within 500 miles of the carrier. E-2s will sanitized the area around the carrier for 500-800 miles out using F-18s to attack air breathing assets. Also, recon satellites can be dodged by carriers and their communications with ground stations will be electronically attacked as well. Long range anti-ship missiles are very dependent on these surveillance/recon assets because they only have a very small radar in the small nose of the missile. Their long range is really a myth.
777Outrigger I completely agree with this. My uncle who was a missile engineer said as much to me when i talked about how such and such missile outraged defense pe on a ship. He was talking about how the trajectory and horizon affects things and that range and speed and size limit each other. Wanna go far and fast you have to be a big target that can’t manuveur as well. Wanna be fast and hard to hit you have to be smaller and sacrifice range.
Agreed ...when we start parking our carriers in the Gobi desert I'll be concerned. During SINKEX 2005 THE USS America CV 66 was used to determine if the ship's built in structural defenses were adiquate against modern weapons systems. They bombed, torpedoed, missiled and mined the ship for a month in the end they had to send in Navy divers to set charges. These tests were used to help design new carriers. usmilitaryupdate.com/navy/uss-america-sinking-a-supercarrier/
damn, you sound like you a Navy Sailor with some info.
@@jacobsweeney2330 Former USAF pilot. But I've known a few admirals and other navy guys, mostly pilots, as well.. I love studying Naval tactics, strategy, and technology.
Joe BLOW#25FH3975361B are you talking real life or war games? If war games I don’t buy it.
Similar arguments were made when Subs armed with torpedoes emerged as a major threat to surface vessels. But ASW warfare employing Destroyers, ASW aircraft, ASW weapons etc took care of it.
Similarly, novel platforms, strategies & weapons (eg. directed energy weapons) might evolve in the future to address the threat.
Modern, quiet subs are death incarnate to surface navies. There's no doubt about that. A carrier task force's Achilles heel is submarines, and everyone knows it. Hypersonics are easily countered, but quite subs aren't until after they launch those torps.
@@operator0
Truly silent subs (often nuclear powered) are more oriented towards providing the strategic nuclear deterrent (via SLBMs) & minimally relegated to offensive aka 'hunter-killer' roles wherein it can be tracked via multiple channels (for instance, via frequent comm interceptions & intelligence).
The SW & ASW warfare for the latter is in the typical cat & mouse race with none of the sides having a disruptive advantage unlike ASM Hypersonics wherein a saturation style attack can be devastating for an entire Carrier Group let alone a single vessel.
@@AnkitYadav-td6mg The quietest subs are the newer electric boats. The Sweeds have a Stirling engine in their Goltland sub. The Spanish have a new air-independant electric sub called the S-80. These subs have the capability to destroy a CAG at will and have proven it in joint exercises.
The U.S. Navy leased the Gotland from the Sweeds for two years to figure out how to counter it. The results were not encouraging.
Even older diesel electric subs like the German Type 212 have been getting favorable results in wargames.
Hypersonic attacks can only happen if the enemy knows where the fleet is to within about a 50nm radius. The CAGs will stay outside the range of hypersonics until the enemy's tracking satellites are shot down and the sub threat is dealt with. This will likely mean the carrier will not be in range to attack the coast line of the enemy at the start of the war.
@@operator0 Go back to your video game and movies? lmao!
JTFEX 06-2 was as NATO code explains sane people? Yes back in 2006 while the Gotland is a 90s submarine? As in launched in the century before this one?
You probably do not understand what this means ...
In the real world that means it's almost 30 years old. How is that new?
@@MrFlatage Anything to say about the S-80 which I also mentioned in my reply, or are you just gonna cherry pick the Gotland which will still run rings around a CAG without well placed hunter-killers of it's own? Don't be a fool. Subs are the real threats to naval power in this world, not hypersonic missiles.
There was an article that described switching to a so called container ship navy. Container ships are super cheap and need very small crews, and could be filled to the brim with drones or missiles.
The CIWS on the USS Stark was broken when she was attacked and her 76mm and MK13 systems were not brought on line. I served on a sister ship (USS Taylor FFG-50) and we did take out a Kormoran anti ship missile with a SM-1
It's all been said before, yet, the only way to influence afar from the homeland, you need a Navy.
They made scale down, but the Navy will always be if theres a need for US involvement in the world
A lot of interesting points raised. It will be interesting to see what happens with future development of TTP and weapon systems.
It will be interesting to see what effect new technologies like drone warships, drone aircraft, lasers, and rail guns have on this balance of power.
Do u know when the US will have rail guns .Because I can't find any new information on this matter?thanks. On there ships that is.
@emosh73 all the video I've seen said it was to good of a weapon system. That it is going somewhere.
Please make video about the Space Force in the future?🙏
He already covered that a year ago:
ua-cam.com/video/VkU8kjgaCZY/v-deo.html
Peter Yim My brother-in-law is one of the first chief Master Sergeants in the space force.
Can we please we hurry up and de-orbit an asteroid over Kim Jong Un's house?
@@busterbeagle2167 What are their plans for Space Force? Are we going to have a Death Star type weapon in orbit? Maybe turn the moon into a Starkiller type base? What about a bunch of satellites with DU or tungsten rods to drop onto the enemy? How about satellites 🛰 armed with lasers to destroy nuclear missiles 🚀?
@@Joe_Friday Nope not happening. Remember the White House was petitioned to build the Death Star and declined. Their argument being not to build something a teen in a single fighter could blow up?
Sure Reagan ranted about lasers on satellites to. He's dead and still no lasers, lol!
My 7yo had a better plan to beat the US Navy. Call Avengers assemble and defeated Captain Kirk. See? Best to stick to plans that work.
These same anti ship defensive weapons could in the more distant future be repurposed to defend against a full scale nuclear ICBM attack. This would completely change the balance of power on earth and make for an unstable future.
He is missing two aspects that will keep Carriers extremely valuable: stand off distance and airborne early warning.
Being able to stay outside of the enemy’s range is a huge factor, since losing a single plane is not that bad economically. That plane will carry Anti Ship/Surface missiles itself, extending the range of engagement of carriers significantly.
Also having an AEW plane on Open seas greatly improves your operating picture, enabling you to engage navies in the first place, since you have to locate your target before you can engage it.
Wait, I was looking forward to seeing USA build SuperStar Destroyers/Battlestar Galacticas/ Borg Cubes/ Death Stars/ etc.
I jumped on the 'Drone carrier' train at least a decade ago, now -if you are using manned airwings off supercarriers to drop bombs (that are worth a down payment on a house) on people still rocking Soviet tech; you are doing something wrong.
what are the drones gonna do? drop rocks?
@@saucysauce593
Better than using a $100k anti-tank missile to blow up a sedan.
Drone carriers are the way to go.
I've been kicking around the idea of the missile battleship. A ship designed to take hits and give them out at great range.
@@FortuitusVideo Yea no navy on the planet operates battleships anymore, lol!
They cannot get past the rubber ducky we designed remember? ;-)
Will always be some kind of navy. As long as there is maritime commerce. There will always be pirates.
Sheffield was not armed to defend against Anti-ship missiles. It had weapons that could take and engage missiles, but it's like saying SM-2 is an anti-ship missile because it could do so, when it lacks most of the features of a proper anti-ship system. Yes the main gun on Sheffield could engage missiles. But it was a single barrel deck gun, firing artillery caliber projectiles and not medium calibers cannon rounds or smaller (yes these ~4 inch deck guns were automatic to some extent), but the system itself reported a 40 round/missile accuracy. It also had Sea Dart. Which could engage missiles. Just as much Patriot and the S-400 can (S-400 is obviously better but still). The three previously mentionned systems however lack agilitity, they are huge missiles made to engage large threats flying in an almost predictable ballistic trajectory, not against missiles sometimes smaller than them, flying at low altitude and almost undetectable to the radar. It would be like watching an 18 wheeler fully loaded trying to do perfect 90 degrees turns in the mountains where the other option is a cliff. They are just flexible in terms of anti-ballistic for selling purposes and bragging rights, it doesn't make them on point defenses against missiles (especially since even the CIWS can fail). Missiles systems such as ESSM and their Russian/Chinese counterpart have more chances but they aren't as combat proven as let's say, Iron Dome.
Me: Talks about air defence.
Conversation: Turns into a normal RT news comment section.
elia haj, oh don't worry, I totally agree with him. Just not when it came to the point of introducing an under equipped ship to a conversation about how ill-prepared we are at AShW; by using HMS Sheffield as an example saying she was fitted to engage missiles and failed to do so when she was not equipped to engage missiles.
@@KallegrandStudios RT comment sections are a mess. Pretty difficult to find a reasonable discussion going on there.
HMS Sheffield suffered from a lack of ECM fitted (which was fitted to other RN ships in the area) and magnesium in the alloy used in her hull. Of note, the first Argentine Exocet missed and bounced off the surface off Sheffield’s port side. The second hit but the warhead failed to detonate.
the offices made no call to action stations, did not turn the ship towards the incoming missiles to reduce the ship's profile, and made no effort to prepare the 4.5-inch gun, the Sea Dart missiles, or order chaff to be fired.
The Stark’s CIWS was not operational and turned off during the engagement. They weren’t supposed leave port until it was repaired.
demizer1968 As mentioned elsewhere, Hms Sheffield also was hit when her sea dart was inactive as they had to take down the radar to transmit a communication- other examples have been quoted of similar situations.
There seems to be a trend of ships being hit when anti-missile systems are down. It suggests to me that 1) anti missile systems have not been as ineffective as the OP suggests, but 2) complicated systems are vulnerable to outages when needed for a wide variety of reasons. Of course it only takes one slip and your shiny ship is at the bottom
Drew Peacock logically if the examples are taken from situations the systems are not switched on you could only conclude they don’t work when they aren’t switched on. To support the conclusion you state that they don’t work at all you’d need to show either they have never worked or assign a threshold condition for success. I have no idea what that would be- I am just making a point about the data in the OP and a logical conclusion from it
Drew Peacock to be honest I was thinking of missile systems rather than phalanx. The debate highlights how little moderns systems in general have been proven in combat in recent years. I would imagine for the barrage fire you state that larger calibre guns would be better e.g 4.5”/5” to put up a larger spread of debris into the air. But with some larger and faster missiles you would probably need a large kinetic hit.
But you can’t expect 100% reliability from any system going back to the mark 1 flint arrowhead. Throughout history the “sword” has generally held sway over the “shield”.
@Drew Peacock Stick to credible sources remember? Don't post known fake news propaganda outlets sponsored by Russian rubles ...
My 7yo would just call Avengers assemble and order Captain Kirk to man our laser gatling cannon.
Drew Peacock the OP used examples of missile defences e.g. Sheffield and sea dart, that is why I commented on them
Uh you still need to protect shipping lanes and project and hold military power beyond your countries land by transporting troops.
You know, I have one simple request...and that's to have ships with frickin laser beams attached to them.
Only one problem if the weather is bad the laser will become increasingly ineffective as the water droplets disperse the lasers beam.
I think he talked about this in a video he made. It's been thought of and even used but it's limited to what it can do
Sad that no one else got this reference. Lol Yeah Baby!!
@@kylecollins7079 It was a random thought and I appreciate you
@@kylecollins7079 We're friends for life
On my ship the CIWS or Phalanx system not only destroyed a towed cruise missile dummy but started to work its way up the tow cable from the aircraft, which freaked the pilot out and he dropped the tow cable and bugged out using full after-burner. CIWS is for real.
During WW2 the average heavy cruiser took 14 months to build (building dozens at a time tho) and the average torpedo took roughly 6 weeks from raw materials to functional weapon.
It was the airplane and torpedoes (as well as dive bombers) which showed the world no matter how big you build a Battleship or how quickly you can pump them out a few planes with torpedoes could effectively take them out faster while at a huge loss for the defender.
It was this idea that effectively killed the Battleship, and gave rise to the aircraft carrier which up until WW2 wasn't really considered or utilized how they are today. Frankly we have Japan to thank for the modern day aircraft carrier as it was they who used them in such a fashion and to such success to encourage others to do the same.
I honestly wasn't expect the video to go like this really (subject matter) but I've felt for a long time the missile can successfully do to the ship what the plane and torpedo managed to do to the Battleship.
You have the IJN to thank for ASMs too. Tokkotai pilots were the proof of concept for guided anti ship missiles, even though the technology to build them wasn't there yet. There were guided glide bombs previously, but the Japanese Ohka was pretty much the first true purpose built self propelled ASM, even if it did use a human brain as a guidance computer.
It's probably going to go full circle. Good luck shooting down hypersonic ASMs without something that moves even faster. Lasers and railguns are the obvious answer, but they need a lot of energy, and that's just asking for a large nuclear powered hull. Once the weapons tech catches up, I expect we'll see a new class of big gun warship, even if its most common role is fleet defense. They may not call it a battleship, but if you've got a main gun battery with 250km+ range, it's close enough.
Missiles will always be cheaper than ship defenses?
And hence overwhelm them anyway.
Except possibly lasers.
@@MrKIMBO345 And rail guns.
@Traiano Welcome Lasers can't be used against ships. You'd need a giant power source to make a laser powerful enough to do significant damage to a large steel ship. You cannot fit that on an attacking aircraft. Even if you did, you'd make a giant, much more fragile plane that the defending destroyer can shoot down much more easily than the aircraft can harm the destroyer.
Rail guns cannot be used on tug boats in the present day, there aren't many ships capable of the electricity needed for those systems, either, a small boat is out of the question. The only systems that small systems can take advantage of are missiles, hence why all the missiles are suddenly everywhere nowadays.
@Traiano Welcome At best though, they'll only fool the Americans once.
Also the Americans are just as good of thinkers, with far more naval experience in naval warfare of current living service members. It's not like the Chinese have a monopoly on thinking.
@Traiano Welcome That shows a bit of failure of imagination. The Americans dont have to win in the Pacific to beat the Chinese, they just need to deny them oil and they can easily do that in the Indian Ocean as well. Most Chinese ships, missiles and aircraft cant reach the Indian Ocean.
Once China is starved for oil, then the Americans can pull the Chinese apart one piece at a time in the Pacific.
Further there is very high odds the Taiwanese and Japanese will support American forces too. China might have lots of weapons, but they'll need a lot more to beat an American lead alliance.
As to nullifying the Americans once. I was very careful with my wording. That's way harder today than you make it sound. They'd have to take out much of the US Pacific Navy in a first strike to even deny America a monopoly. Even then it might not be enough, as America could easily use that as an excuse for unrelenting submarine warfare on all Chinese shipping. China depends on exports of commodities and imports of resources, without it their economy would suffer a crash far worse than any military advantage they could gain with their forces of today or even a decade from now. I'm sorry but I feel you are vastly underestimating China's ability to surprise America, they simply cant hit everywhere America is and with modern communication America would have ample time in many locations to sail their ships somewhere else and get their defenses online. The target is too numerous and mostly far beyond China's range, only a few ships at any one time are they able to locate and destroy. After that the rest will know. China at best will do a mini Pearl Harbor... unless their stupid enough to use nukes. In which case America will obliterate them.
America overreacts, at least compared to most other nations today, any military action on the scale you seem to be implying would be an act of war which America would gladly rise to meet. Now, America would restrain from invading the Chinese homeland to avoid nuclear war, but America would hit targets in China without impunity after they have broken them outside of China and starved them of ever resource imaginable. They likely wouldn't stop until China unconditionally surrendered.
As much as I think China can bloody America's nose, long term I'm sorry to say I just dont think you fully thought this through. I literally meant, China has one free shot. If they dont kill America with it, America will rip the dragon China thinks it is one scale at a time until its left bleeding out on the floor begging for mercy.
The Chinese strategy will be very good if they get a particularly stupid American Admiral. They could even sink a carrier or two, but I dont see them as being able to sink the others and they're supply lines are just too reliant upon sea routes they cant defend. As another example, China requires lots of fertilizer to produce enough food to feed its nation, they import that fertilizer... mostly from America.
Put another way China seems to think it's the next Soviet Union. The issue with that line of thinking is the Soviet Union didnt have to rely upon international trade but internal trade. America is fully capable of denying China that trade. Even if say China gets magical pipelines from Russia, which in reality need a decade or more to materialize, America would simply blow up the pipe anywhere alone its many thousands of kilometers long path and repeat it as nauseam.
What about submarines? They can't be attacked by surface missiles and they can stay out for months at a time (from a US standpoint). If the US were engaged in a war with China, submarines could definitely be an effective area denial force in the South China Sea especially since the rival Chinese submarines are inferior in terms of noise levels.
@Drew Peacock Exactly, and in both noise level and sonar sensitivity US subs generally have the edge. Of course, there are always ASW aircraft, and the water around China isn't the deepest, so US subs subs could have some problems with MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) on planes.
@Drew Peacock Thanks for the info on MAD countermeasures. I had no idea these devices existed. Also, I looked up the Astute. It seems that it is very capable and I'm glad it's on NATO's side.
As for how I know the capabilities of Chinese subs compared to US subs, I don't know any specifics, but historically Western navies have had the quietest submarines with the best sonar. Here's an article on how that remains true today: www.businessinsider.com/us-subs-better-than-chinese-subs-but-it-may-not-matter-in-a-conflict-2018-9
P.S. The Chinese appear to have adopted AIP technology into their Yuan class boats, but haven't quite mastered the tech and they aren't as quiet as US subs.
@Drew Peacock The article I gave you said that the Chinese subs are less quiet then the US subs, so they would detect Chinese subs and attack before being counter-detected. Also, while researching the Astute class I found that it could hold contact with US subs from a surprising distance, so they would be extremely effective against the noisier Chinese subs if NATO got called into a conflict (which they probably would be).
@@kevinwilt3918 Nice Princess Bride reference! But yeah, anti-ship launchers are hard to detect and then track due to their small size and mobility. And while in a more recent video Cabal questioned the DF-21's effectiveness, he said that US fleets would still have to take them as a threat and remain outside their range. That's why I talked about US submarines being able to effectively blockade the South China Sea. According to UA-camr Jive Turkey, a former US submarine sonarman who plays naval combat games, that is probably how the US would gain the initiative: flood the area with subs and strike Chinese SAGs from far away using ADCAPs.
@Drew Peacock Sorry I took so long getting back to you. The US naval officer interviewed in the article I sent said the Chinese had louder subs than ours, so the US Navy seemingly knows the capabilities of China's submarines. This makes sense as according to the book "Blind Man's Bluff" (I recommend checking it out, it's a good read) one of the primary jobs of attack subs during peacetime is to track enemy submarines in order in gain data on their capabilities. Of course, the US Navy could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Edit: replaced wartime with peacetime
Actually just sink the navies and make a subermarine navy would be a lot easier
The vulnerability of a large target like an aircraft carrier is an issue but there are other factors to consider. Any attack on a carrier would be a declaration of war and would unleash a response of epic proportions. A loss of 5000 men, 100 planes and a carrier would pale in comparison to a response of cruise missiles, stealth bombers, electronic warfare measures, Seal raids, a limited nuclear response, hypersonic missiles, an economic blockade, a financial seizure of assets and stuff that is not yet public. Nobody in their right mind is going to invite that kind of retaliation and there lies the deterrent factor. A war would be ugly for both sides but the US has sufficient assets to make it a loosing proposition.
That’s where you get a airborne navy going and/or airborne aircraft carriers. There is a possibility airships are going to make a resurgence and flying airbases/Air carriers are something I can see being very effective with drone swarm technology (drone swarms can be used as offensive walls and anti-missile barriers/Shields). I picture something like a flying airport with a considerable amount of vtol drones attached charging or refueling on the underside, with underside mounted turrets and rocket bays for close air surface support, the deck supporting a variety of weapons also. With a few escorting Air cruisers, that them selves benefit from the carriers defensive drone swarms.
Covert cabal: Gives articulate and well thought out arguments on real practical military scenarios and ideas.
Every other military UA-cam channel: US CANNOT DEVEND AGAIN N3W INVICIBLE HYPERSONIC MISSIL WHAAHHAHAHAH!?!?!?
What's actually changed isn't the utility of aircraft carriers. In a blue-water arena like the mid pacific, supercarriers armed with long ranged aircraft and destroyers, the latter two armed with long ranged missiles, will continue to be decisive. What has changed is that we are not going to be fighting blue-water battles for a long time. The US doesn't have any peers in that area. It will be fighting China along the Asia-Pacific seaboard, and in this green-water arena, carriers are more vulnerable than they are valuable, and today China has no incentive or ability to challenge America in the situations in which carriers are and will continue to be hegemonic. Carriers are still too effective for their own good.
Nonsense... Carriers are solved problem with new hypersonic missile, like Kinzhal. There is no way that carriers can defend themselves against a balistic missile shot from 3000 km and going 10 mach armed with nukes and unpredictable trajectories. Whats worse for them this kind of missile, like Kinzhal, its not too complicated to be built, its basiclly Iskander on the plane. China has such arm, India has, and many more countries will have in the neer future. Navies around world know this fact, but are reluctant to admit that they hands are tied. And the contracts are good...
@@milanradovanovic3693 but thats not what I'm saying. In a blue-water arena, the US will always have the range advantage, because it will have SUPERcarriers filled with 50+ F35s or Super Bugs that can carry an equivalent 3000km missile. So the carrier battle group has a strike range of 3600km, whilst China's opposing destroyers are using a surface-launched equivalent with a 2500km range. The REAL issue is stupidity; the US is unlikely to invest in ALBMs like Kinzhal for a while yet, and will be want to use carriers against land targets on the well defended Chinese coast, where they are admittedly very vulnerable.
@@appleislander8536 Sorry if misunderstood you somehow, but if I correctlly intepret your point, what you mean by blue water arena, that is fight on the sea, seafare... But thats very limited scenario, allmost games like scenario not real one. Do you really think China or Russia will ever allow such a big US Navy formation to come close to their border without attacking them first. Those F35 will become sitting ducks for land based interceptors no airplane is a match for balistic missile chasing him... Of course US doesnt have ALBM, because those are defensive systems, US is imperial creation and its not in their plan to make defensive weapon. For what I can see, US West cost is 10 times easier target, then Chinese coast...It can be eithet destroyed or taken without much trouble either by China or Russia... Those bilion Chinese living near the coasr wont surrender that easy, but for Californians I dont no man..
@@milanradovanovic3693 I think you misunderstand. When I say blue water scenario, I mean the Mid Pacific. A truly Naval arena. If we must accept that hypersonics like Kinzhal will be the decisive weapon of naval combat, then in a NAVAL battle the US will have the range advantage, because an air-launched missile will have greater range than a surface launched one, and that is added to the plane's combat radius, and thus a carrier battle group, which can launch long range fightee bombers, will be at am advantage. The question of hypersonics being unavailable to the US due to imperialism is nonsensical. And take this from a Westerner, the 40 million Californians will fight harder than a billion Chinese. And, as I have already explained, the US West Coast will be unavailable to China (or any body else) because the US's blue water naval abilities are orders of magnitude superior.
As regards to the CIWS system I heard long ago that according to sailors it stands for Captain It Won't Shoot!
@I'll figure it out Think I saw it on 60 Minutes back before it became all left wing propaganda. It's failure rate was terrible. Although I've also heard it had about an 80% success rate with land based units in Iraq against rockets and mortars.
@@terryboyer1342 Even if the failure rate on CIWS systems is high, does that actually mean the system isn't worth it? It's meant as a last-ditch defensive measure, so even if it only shoots down a third of incoming projectiles, that's still a third of the projectiles that won't hit their target. If they have a higher success rate on land, it's probably due to largely being used against unguided projectiles on parabolic trajectories. It just means that they're a lot better for that use case.
@@guspaz For the value of the ships worth I'm amazed at how little the US Navy allocates for their defence. Would you want your son or daughter whose life may depend on its success? The Russians and Chinese seem to take defence of their ships much more seriously. They bristle with counter measures and weapons.
@@terryboyer1342 So you spout left wing propaganda? Hearsay and fake news?
How about the Battle of Bubiyan? Were you there hearing the screams of US sailors after Saddam launched one single ye old 1960s rocket at the US Navy? Yes yes I know they won't scream from some puny missile. They definately screamed lots on the USS Missouri when US Phalanx open fire on it's own ship. After they reset it a US pilot had to eject cos it was turned into swiss cheese.
You mean failure rate during combat complete and total for US CIWS?
@@MrFlatage I have no idea what you're saying. Are you drunk?
The phalanx in1986 stark incident was not live at the time.
It did not miss. It was inoperable
As if the army or air force does not have the same problem.
Same situation for all military branches. And there is no alternative to move that much force so stealthily other than through the ocean.
When commerce stops moving on the high seas, we won't need navies.
You will need navies if the adversary takes advantage of the water.
But why commerce stop moving on the high seas?
What is commerce
@@austinrevis2217 Trading
he's saying this to point out that because sea commerce will never stop, neither will navies
Make one about SOCOM and other special forces
It’s unlikely that he will, as he usually focuses on weapons systems or broader topics, like strategy and doctrine.
Bob John well special forces are also a big part of modern American(and not America) strategy, dealing with insurgents and insurgency.
Special Operations Forces*. “Special Forces” (for the US, at least) refers specifically to the Green Berets.
098765 Craper where did I mention the marines?
098765 Craper also technically marines are special forces
the future is all robots... these carriers will be replaced by motherships to refuel/arm the drone swarms, everything automated...
Not anytime soon though.
Cool story, tell me the one about how nukes would be the future of all warfare. I think that’s my favorite.
Yea but then there are no humans in there, easier to control a robot than a human
@@ns7353 You gotta build robots, people build themselves. But no honestly it's the lack of decision making skills that holds machines back. How do they prioritize targets? How do they identify civilians? How do you stop signals from getting jammed?
Still all of thay will be useless, why have all of that if you are never going 2 use it?
The Phalanx works but it depends on the mode it’s in.
One mode would shoot down anything flying on automatic.
The other is target specific and depends on recognizing the threat by humans.
There will always be a Navy because of force projection around the world and landing forces on shores.
One defensive weapon no one talks about is the Italian Strakes system, using 76mm guns.
Unlike ciws, it fires a range of shells, and shoots far further out.
The planned Italian destroyer is said to have 4 X 76mm guns. It has room for 6 imho, but even 4 guns us better than the usual 1 ciws most ships have
Hey, man - it's been TWO MONTHS since you first posted this and the NAVY IS STLL HERE. WTF, Dude?
"Is [insert weapon here] becoming obsolete?" Has been a question since man found a rock and each other over the head with it.
The navy is mainly fighting pirates in wooden boats. I think the navy will stick around for a while.
Voice break at 8:02
F
Don’t care didn’t ask
Its funny, you say S400 SAMs are very dangerous and effective against cruise missiles and aircraft, but ship SAMs such as Aegis System which can be feed by early warning E2 Hawkeys will strugle to intercept ASMs with its SM6s, SM2s and ESSMs...If aegis is in trouble Air defense systems are doomed.
You have a problem when an reasonably fast aircraft can drop a string of mines side, forward and aft of a surface ship. But I guess that's what subs are for. Then again those dam buster raids of 1943 on the Ruhr show how inventive the mind can get.
Copper bottoms will solve everything . Just wants to make me laugh- nobody knows anything until the shooting starts and it’s all said and done.A perfect example is simulations done at the US Navy war college training centre using the the battle of midway and 95% of the time running the exact same historical scenario the Japanese win, yet we know better.WOUDA,COUDA,SHOUDA.
I mean it was a fairly even fight so it’s more likely to be a 50/50 chance I’m guessing they got that 95% chance by changing the situation for the Japanese
@@lukemale2010 Yeah in wargames the US typically makes it more difficult for themselves, because winning war games is basically just jerking off.
The United States had incredible luck in the Battle of Midway.
@@uncreativename9936 plus you don’t learn lesson by winning.
I think the future of navies will be in underwater like underwater destroyers, cruisers or even aircraft carriers. Pun not intended.
Everything you see in Command and Conquer: Zero hour will eventually come to reality. (Probably)
Love that game!!!
China will grow larger
The reason that the Starks CIWS didn't engage is because it was turned off. It wasn't even operating. The Captain decided he wanted to have full emcom (emission control) conditions, no radars or communications gear was allowed to be transmitting and for that reason they shut off the CIWS. I'm a former Fire Control Missiles Naval Petty Officer and I worked with the guys who maintained the CIWS and it is a VERY Powerful Close in defense system.
A good example of modern ramped ship construction during wartime would be HMS Illustrious in 1982 during the Falklands War. It was sped up by months to participate in the South Atlantic.
Future war starts from destroying rivals satellites guiding network, so, in my view, an airspace force is critical
ASW are a thing
Excellent work as always... I agree with you that the navy will soon go autonomous, way before the army and airforce.
We've got drone strike fighters being built. Crazy shit man :0
Air forces have the same problem air bases are primari targets
Yeah. But you can defend against that by adding lots of redundancy. Like how in some countries they design the highways to be used as backup runways.
@@LN37275 Can you post this design? Sounds made up.
@@MrFlatage Sweden did this seriously. It's just having straight highway sections with removable central dividers and being equipped to refuel and reload from austere sites. Search "Highway strip" on Wikipedia.
@@LN37275 It is true that dispericon is a solution to the vulnerabiliti of air bases. the problem is that big asets like tankers bombers, awacs etc can´t be disperced. And air bases are more bulnerable to low level treats like small drones
@@Wick9876 Sorry Wiki Warrior troll. Burden of Proof over fake news propaganda outlets for low IQ people who have no education and knowledge but need a search engine.
Just post the design already. Unless there is no design.
PS. Bigfoot is real and he came from another planet. Go search 'bigfoot'. ;-)
The shield would have been developed to defend against spear thrusts or rocks and arrows. Wooden or stone tipped spears were around much earlier than swords, which generally require a fair amount of metal to construct.
One supposes that the answer to the worry about losing these big, expensive carriers, is to build smaller, cheaper carriers. Drone craft can be built to need a far smaller deck to launch and recover from, so to me it seems reasonable to aim to build drone-launch "escort carriers" that are similar in size to a Ticonderoga or Zumwalt.
The future of the navies will hopefully resemble that of science fiction, however plausible, if at all.
I want futures navies and militaries in general to closely resemble that of Star Trek's "Starfleet," or Mass Effect's "Alliance Navy," or Halo's "United Nations Space Command."
Enter: United States Space Force
Clearly, the USSF exists only as a nominal expansion of the Air Force's predecessor, USSPACECOM, a jointly-run combatant command. It will predominantly function as a space intelligence apparatus with anti-satellite and anti-jamming functions, but my hope is that it will provide security services to NASA and American companies that expand into space.
In a more distant future, the Space Force would be the largest branch with a comprehensive space fleet, air, ground, and extraterrestrial marine forces.
Until then, the Space Force should instead be named something that accurately identifies what its purpose is. So, it should be named something more like the United States "Aerospace Corps," or "Orbital Guard," with naval-inspired ranks.
Bit of a tangent here but interesting topic to me nonetheless.
No no, I like this. Please go on.
When you talk about lasers and how it takes to much power for anything decent, i think to myself 'he should watch StyroPyro's new upload'.
And the US Armed Forces has tech way beyond that im sure.
imagine styropyros shit, but powered by a litteral nuclear reactor, that is also aiming at a camera. Thats how effective lasers are going to be.
I love the initial music, I was wondering if I could download it, or what it sources so I can play it on my car on long drives. It really sounds like the shit is going down With that music introduction!
I think its just the same music from all the song but on a higher volume, so, BTS prolog by kevin
Glamour זוהר תודה !
With you on that one 😀
You can put More Missiles on land than Ship and those cost way less than Ship.
In 2011, the Royal Navy Type 42 destroyer, HMS Liverpool used unguided naval artillery in the form of her 4.5 inch Mk 8 gun to engage and destroy shore targets in Libya after being fired upon by them in an attempt to damage or sink her.
All the technology in the world won’t stop a high explosive shell being lobbed through the air.
Railguns are also being considered as a counter to missiles. Mach 10 projectiles could be extremely effective at hitting cruise missiles.
Railgun CIWS :D
damonstr railgun battleships lol.
@@randomguy966 Yeah they're called Zumwalt class. Soon (tm)
@@damonstr Nah fake news from a anti American troll does not count.
www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=139
And I quote: 'not truly a class, but a concept'.
You probably played some videogame with there is some kinda 'Zumwalt class'? ;-)
@@MrFlatage That website lists DDG 105 as the latest Burke. That makes it at least 10 years old.
When was the last time anyone referred to DD1000 class as DD(X) (hint: that was the development program). That's like calling the F-22 "ATF".
The future of navies is submarines
Submarines are great at engaging other ships and subs, but not too useful for much else (not counting nuclear weapons). They don't have the power projection of aircraft carriers and you can't use it to gain air superiority.
There was a time (I think the 70s or 80s) where the Royal Navy considered going entirely with submarines, but ultimately it's a good thing we didn't. When Argentina invaded the Falklands, it was British carriers that managed to gain air superiority, and it is likely that we wouldn't have retaken the islands if we didn't have that. If the Royal Navy only had subs, the Falklands would have been lost. That's a real world example of why going only for subs is not a good idea.
Of course, if all your navy wants to do is engage enemy ships near its coast, and not do anything majorly offencive with it, subs are great.
The future of US navy is massive debts pilling up 😂😂 just for big slow unusable janks
@@Sir_Budginton Time to bring back submarine aircraft carriers.
*are
Good luck transporting and landing and supporting troops on enemy beaches with just submarines.
Idk, I think we'll have a Navy that will be defended with directed energy weapons. I agree that the technological, material and operational costs are excessive. I think we will have a Space battle force if we don't already.Submarines will be around for awhile as of now theres no better place for launching nuclear weapons.
Do you mean lasers? And too bad it's too expensive to lift heavy tungsten or DU rods into orbit to launch down upon our foes.
@@Joe_Friday Well, lasers, microwaves, particle beams,hell full we have a pretty big spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. The new Ford class Super Carriers have an abundance of electric power generation .I think somewhere in the 1500Mw area. It also has plenty of room for power storage. As time goes on I'm sure megawatt powered weapons will be feasible. ABM missiles are extremely expensive and magazine capacity limited. I'm sure in any major conflict offensive missiles will be some of the first things targeted with Stealth ,jamming, hacking,EMP weapons and hypersonics. Hopefully though we will never see it. Wars suck and war on that scale would be unimaginable.
@@billconservative9503 Sorry you cannot think something into existance. We all know the Ford's do not have the power or the capacitator banks required for any laser weapon.
Stealth targets stuff now? Uh huh may as well bring Bigfoot in on it.
Can you post the costs? I see none ...
Don't make me deploy my laser gatling cannon to shoot BS down. ;-)
@@MrFlatage Power output=1500mw-1.5mw = 1498.5 theres a little more power left. As far as capacitors, I agree as of now. I said there is ample room for power storage. And if you don't think we're working on megawatt class lasers your high. B21 Raiders ,F35s,Valkyrie drones ,x47 drones for fueling, Champ cruise missiles, MALD-J cruise missiles, EA-18G Growlers, JASSM-ER...this is a few of the things used for air suppression. Yes the first B21 will be off the line soon. We would just have to use the (old B2s)🙄. Never mind the obvious salvos of cruise missiles launched from the Ohio class SSGN,ns. Like it or not any air defense system that encountered this onslaught would have little chance of surviving. This is just the unclassified version.
All but the B21 are in active service .Costs...$21 Trillion dollars (Insert Dr Evils voice here). You think that money was spent on infrastructure projects!?
How many assault carriers (helicopter carriers) are there compared to normal aircraft carriers? What the difference in build and deployment time?
Setting aside that hypersonic weapons are considerably less accurate than this posits, atomic weaponry has made total war too dangerous. What is left is more world policing, tamping down regional conflicts. In that arena, navies are extremely useful.
Aliens looking over us from above are saying to themselves “ look at these fools” ! We could wipe them out in seconds if it wasnt for their soft bums we love probing “
Literally 0 words about the advanced kill-chain required for missiles to hit a target, you state Chinese propagada (with the range of the DF2060) as a facts. This video isn't credible at all.
Ya hes gotten pretty bad lately with states things as facts that simply arent, and omitting crucial facts. if was a person prone to conspiracies i would say it might have to do with some new "sponsors" of his.
you can't even get the name right, DF26D is the second ASBM of China, and he got it wrong in the video, the range is not 3,000 km, it's 4,000 km. according to "Chinese propaganda", they are already playing with ballistic missiles with Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, which is DF17. don't make yourself look dump, fucking salt bae.
If you look it that way, you shouldn't trust any weapons range. All countries have propaganda when it comes to the military
@@guilhermevelhote5307 Some countries are notorious serial liars in these regards tho which means you should take what they say with a bit more then just a grain of salt, China and Russia both comes to mind here.
timothy1949 Damn, you mad.
The voice is Chinese and that tells me everything. The REALLY resent America's Aircraft Carriers and will do Anything to undermine confidence in them.
I am an air force guy. I would prefer more investment into the air force but then a navy has her needs. We need ships for escorts, anti submarine warfare, anti surface ship warfare.
As for defense, I think ECM will see a huge renaissance. All those missiles have sophisticated guidance technic, they require very much computer imput.
A JEDI Master pilot can fly through a Star Wars canyon at full speed and hit a wombat sized target inside a turn flying cold stick or take out a entire squadron of F22s.
What more do you want? And why?
After the first gulf war I realised straight away that large ships would become worthless for offense. I was also shocked that the UK decided to build two carriers when everyone knew how vulnerable they would be. Small multiple fast attack craft, missiles and drones is the way forward.
We used to look at pornography. Now it's World of Warships.
Well...I hope some of us watch porn
Just the same. Ships always tried to penetrate the enemies, harbors, and sink their ships with torpedoes. Humans do the same. Always trying to get in and coming out, before you blew a fuse!
The new laser systems will make missile interception a joke. Hyper-sonic meets speed of light. A missile at that speed can take no additional heat. The ships will be fine.
I hope so. I worry about attacks being launched in cloudy weather rendering the turbo lasers ineffective.
ONE laser has huge power requirements, there's no way to have enough of them firing simultaneously to counter a missile barrage. Besides, hypersonic missiles are both insanely fast and hard to detect. Speed of light is a no factor if you can't AIM that thing. With current laser and detection technology there's no way to defend against (already operational) modern missiles. By the time lasers are viable, who knows what type of missiles will be around. I think area defense ('bubble') instead of shooting every missile one at a time is the right approach. But yeah, starting from scratch doesn't sound too encouraging. In any case, it's a good thing deterrence is still in place.
The laser's power would be spread over a fairly large area at the ranges it has to operate though, and weather like clouds or rain dramatically reduce the transmitted power as well. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
@@Joe_Friday Unless the clouds are down overtop of the bridge, you're not going to be affected. Lasers move at the speed of light. The targetting system will be made so it can catch things inside of 10ms, there will be no opening except during the time the system is recharging for a few hundred milliseconds. It would take a concentrated barrage of hundreds of missiles at different ends of the ship to achieve a hit through one of these even in cloudy weather. They're an incredible force, and the electrical charge amounts to only a dollar a charge. They don't use that much force and if they used anti-heat shielding tech on the missiles things could be dicey. The laser is heat energy based, so...
@@checkwikipediasrsly9274 What is this bridge you speak of?
Whenever Americans look at history they jump from year zero to the British empire like 2000 years didn’t exist. It’s funny to see myths in action.
@connection lost Very true. Every nationality has their own myths and it's only possible to notice from the outside.
TR PO
Can't expect him to include everyone that had a notable navy, though it would be interesting.
Maybe you can do it a video dedicated to each one I definitely will watch it.
Lasers, I don't think they will become the weapon of the future.
As far as I know, when I studied engineering, laser systems had problems with range and potency, due to the atmosphere itself, weather conditions, such as fog or rain.
Environmental "interference" consumes much of the power and range of the Laser, making it unsuitable for military use.
That is why lasers mounted on "super trucks" are not used, because you should use 5 generators (on 5 trucks) and 5 tank trucks (another truck for the command post and one or two more for the detection and guidance system) to obtain a shot at 1000 meters.
Laser weapons have a real use in very very limited combat.
You need a great source of energy.
You need to transport this energy to a single point, and copper cables have remained the same for the past 20 years.
You would need to accumulate the energy in a magic accumulator, which does not exist and therefore you can only produce a beam, with limited energy.
You need to cool the system.
I doubt that more than 1,000 or 2,000 meters can be used, at great cost and effort, without appreciating that the detection and monitoring system is the basis of any system.
Nah any real engineer does not think but he builds stuff that works?
imgur.com/a/hEerDDg
Actual engineers are building trucks with lasers that costs millions which they designed ... not to be used?
Feel free at any time to post your supposed engineering degree? Or they kick you out cos you kept ranting about designs that were unuseable? Probably when you mentioned: 'magic accumulator'?
Seriously? Magic? Lmao!
@David Kelly Nice fake news with no proof or evidence, lol!
Technologies beyond humanities comprehension?
So ... who built this technology we see no evidence of?
And I would like a official proven fact source on your DARPA claim.
Yes there is so much BS out there. Seems you are part of it? ;-)
@David Kelly Haha fake news troll loses it. Namecalls like a little child and rams his caps keys, lmao!
Wow so you have a ye old cellphone still? Sorry fake news troll. I do not have any phone here. ;-)
So your personal attacks failed and you have no proof or evidence as predicted.
Sorry I am not a researcher so I cannot do research. Nor will you show any credentials of being a researcher. Cos a real researcher proves things. So we know for a fact you have not done any research.
One simple question about which non human technology you said exists and you went bonkers like we know trolls always do.
Meanwhile I post real world technology for everyone to see.
Elena Freeland does not even exist. You lacked the education to get a name right. Yes everyone with a IQ can fact check it's Elana? To quote from her official website: When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. So according to her you are a murder. And is this person a researcher? No she is not.
Is this Robert Duncan a researcher? No he is not.
Yup trolls will pretend to know research but you have nothing. Zero research to show for. I agree you totally suck at trolling, lmao!
fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45098.pdf
See? So easy to find actual research written by factual scientists.
I will go with science and proven facts. You go read your fictional fantasy books.
@David Kelly Haha no you are the troll. Trolls when asked for proof and evidence to their blatant lies will turn into namecalling children ramming their all caps keys. We all see you do it.
You claimed technology beyond human comprehension. We all can read your lies here? No you are not án and I quote: 'lier'. You are a liar. ;-)
So now everyone here knows you read some fictional books from people who are not researchers or scientists. Go read the Bible then? It will tell you about weapons and armies of God? Haha!!!
Did you read Harry Potter too and believe magic is real like the other guy?
A liar will tell you he knows things but will like you do avoid and deflect from basic questions on his claims. He talks of doing 'research' but we see no proof or evidence. Great people who actually did do their research? "ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" - Socrates -
Remember the other one? When the debate is lost? Slander becomes the tool of the loser. People will proof read and fact check that you only are hurling slander here. Cos the real research proved you wrong which clearly triggered you. Clear ad hominem attacks to avoid and deflect like a troll and one 'lie' after the other.
Too bad I am the one showing people real and new technology. And ofcourse I post real research by real world scientist. You got nothing so all you are doing is hurling your slander and pretend to know when you don't.
You will now rinse, repeat and ram your all caps some more. In 3 ... 2 ... 1. Here it comes people!
Yep, navies are obsolete for all those nations that cannot afford one.