@@wayne9287 I hope this isn't something you seriously think will be next because there is a lot of reasons why having some sort of space carrier is just not ever gonna work any time soon.
As a former sailor who spent 44 months onboard the aircraft carrier USS Independence, CV-62 I know from my experience at sea that we keep the peace and that is a global mission. We only go to war if that is the mission!
Yeap if peace with no military spending was possible it would be awesome, but humanity taught us that others will come and crush you. So if it keeps peace, spend and keep getting better at what you do. Thank you for your work 👊
"Your tax money just bought a baby yacht that fits inside my regular yacht. Thank you for keeping us afloat (pun intended) in these stressful uncertain times. Plebe."- sincerely, America's Billionaires
Check out Nancy Pelosi Mansion and pat yourself... now that’s real info that didn’t came from “reliable sources” and “stellar journalists” or any any peabody and emmy awardees 👍👍👍
@@TitoBobbyPh Making this a Democrat vs Republican thing just shows how immensely stupid you are. Both parties are bought by corporations and the rich. Republicans just a smudge more since they don't really have any politician funded small donations. Democrats have like 4 or 5.. Big whoop.
China supposedly has Carrier Killer Missiles yet are still building aircraft carriers. That speaks volumes as to how important aircraft carriers are still for any navy
Carriers provide value add when up against countries that have no means of sinking them. Perhaps China’s investment into carriers are for 1) power projection and international engagements with non super powers 2) developing landmark projections that embolden domestic nationalism
As usual politics is inseparable from warfare. In a nice clean fair US vs China over some neutral island carriers are probably not vary useful because of ballistic missiles and submarines(despite the advancements in countermeasures) . But as a tool to bully other countries. Yea still good for that. And non break glass conflicts even between super powers where firing ballistic missiles might be frowned upon. Yea still good for that. But note China as a percentage of GPS is spending much less than us on carriers. They clearly think they are less important than we do. In fact they spend much less on their military as a percentage of GDP at PPP than we do. I suspect they have realized that infrastructure, education, health care and research are a way better investment if you want to win a war 20 years from now than big pieces of metal.
Chinese carriers are built to protect their coasts and islands in the Chinese Sea. No need for nuclear because they are always close to their motherland.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Liberals go back to the same phrases. In WW1 they called them the "merchants of death" then the "complex" these merchants save our lives with every weapon they create because of the deterrence of them all is an arm race that will prove to a psyche of a state that kinetic warfare is not a action with dividends to be gotten ie Hitler calling the people at Munich worms because pacifist were to be hated not Reciprocated
Friendly reminder that a USN Carrier Strike Group is capable of traveling over 700 nautical miles in a single day. Making it the most maneuverable and destructive military unit to ever exist outside of SSBNs.
@@woodynorris8224 Not true. First, sophisticated adverse countries know exactly the current location of the carrier to program their missiles. Second , the carrier never sails alone. The group can travel only as fast as the slowest ship in the convoy, which is the always accompanying attack submarine of the group. You can half the speed and range. Besides, at full speed they don't get far because they would need to refuel pretty soon. And the refuel supply ships would be sunk quickly in advance because they are slow moving targets. So no, a carrier group today is quite constrained in their real world capabilities. Their best use was to cruise at the coast of a 3rd. world country and threaten them to comply to their demands. Those times are over.
@@DilbertMuc Simply finding an aircraft carrier at a particular moment in time won't satisfy an attacker's targeting requirements. Once the carrier is spotted, the attacker must make a series of command decisions leading to the launch of weapons, and then the weapons must transit the space between their point of origin and the carrier. While all this is occurring, the carrier is moving. During a 30-minute period, it may have maneuvered anywhere within a circle measuring 700 square miles. Over 90 minutes, the area grows to 6000 square miles. In a day - if it is cruising in a straight line at high speed - it can move over 700 nm from where it was first sighted. In order to keep up with the carrier's movements, an attacker must establish a continuous track of the vessel using some combination of land-based, sea-based, space-based and airborne sensors. Moreover, the track must be sufficiently precise so that it can provide targeting coordinates to weapons when they arrive in the carrier's vicinity. As of today, even the United States has difficulty accomplishing such a feat, and no other nation is close to having the requisite capabilities.
@@hieuphungminh6690 If that is the case then the Russian (or Chinese) anti-carrier missiles and hypersonic missiles fail to work in theory and reality. I guess they figured that out. Anyway, the carrier group's location is always known by satellites and their precise location is exactly known when they approach the coast of Russia or China. Take the max. range of the planes and take 40% of it and that is the closest distance the carrier group can approach an adversary, which is roughly 250-300 miles. 300 miles can cover any modern radar. The carrier group can only cruise up and down the coast within a narrow strip. Too far and the planes can't fly, too close and the threat of missiles and precise radars is too high. When recent tensions between Iran and USA were high, their carrier group stayed in the Arabic Sea outside the range of Iranian anti-ship missiles, for a reason.
@@hieuphungminh6690 They do if they run at 30-35 knots. That's why they sail at cruising speed of 20. Cargo ships are even much slower to save fuel. Remember, water has friction resistance of 1000x of air and resistance increases exponentially with speed.
As effective as the supercarriers are, it makes me a bit queasy to think that an unlucky break in a squabble with China could sink the perception of American strength with the loss of a single ship... The symbolic power of such goliaths is a double-edged sword.
Exactly. They only need to succeed once or even get kinda close. The one(s) trying to kick down at a defence find it cheaper to try newer things until something works.
I served on the USS Kitty Hawk & USS John C. Stennis over 11 years ago. Each class of warship provides a different support to naval warfare overall. I believe we need more submarines though. Silent but deadly underwater to crawl right under the enemies nose is invaluable. Electric Boat can build 4-5 Virginia class subs for every 1 Ford class carrier, and that's still way less recruitment of new sailors to man those subs than the carrier
Subs are a decent counter, I'd send a dozen interceptors housing dozens of suicide drones and a few hypersonic missiles launched from the other side of the world. The hyper swarm combo.
Electric Boat has no surge capacity for Virginias, nor does Newport News. What surplus manufacturing capacity they have is taken up by the Colombia-class.
@@TheLiamster Actually a blimp is a legitimate asset for maintaining air superiority. I mean you could send one blimp with an armada of ships and destroy a land locked country. The other useful one is a Starship like thing that has a hanger to drop aircraft from.
@@KRYMauL yeah, there was a an Army program called JLENS which used radars mounted on blimps to detect and track aircraft and missiles. The program got cancelled because it was easier to just use AWACS aircraft and ground or ship based radars.
@@KRYMauL blimps wouldn’t likely be used offensively in an actual war because they are vulnerable and unlike aircraft they don’t have any active countermeasures
@@lewislane1143 Military, especially these aircraft carriers, are the backbone of American imperialism. There is no way the government would turn away from it and spend more money on American people
The HII yards both have plenty of business without the CVN and LHA programs. Newport News has both Virginia-class and Colombia-class submarines, and Ingalls has LPD, Burke III, NSC, and LCS support.
@@lewislane1143 yet American infrastructure is still the most advanced in the western world and the budget for education is still larger than the next 11 countries combined
Right I've had a think - We ditch the Carrier and build a raft by tying some logs together. We power it up with hamster wheels and put a gun on it - Build 1 million rafts just like this one!
@@captainzach6226 Right . . . We get Arnie and we get Stallone and clone them. Strap em up with miniguns and a crate of ammo! Plus a few grenades if we have any surplus cash left over, after firing Tom Cruise & Val Kilmer from the Naval fleet!
Pretty much, there really isn’t any reason to rush carrier production. The US has what? 10+ super carriers that are all nuclear powered. China is building their 3rd but the ones they have aren’t nuclear powered and the Chinese navy lacks the experience for carrier operations like the USN. Russia has only 1 (that’s debatable if it’s still in good shape). India is building their own but again, non nuclear and India isn’t an adversary of the US. Everyone else is an ally of the US. There isn’t any need like you said to speed build new Gerald R Ford carriers.
There isn't a reason to build them faster, and if the Navy built them faster, they would need to at least partially-fund the infrastructure improvements necessary to make that happen.
@@Rosu2022 The largest British battleships ever built were the King George V class of 1939, which was 745 feet long, 103ft wide, and displaced about 43000 tons at full load. A Nimitz-class carrier is 1092ft long, 252ft wide, and displaces 102,000 tons at full load. Even the Yamato-class battleship measures only 862ft long, 127ft wide, and displaces 72,000 tons. Even setting aside the fact that a nuclear power plant is far more complex than standard oil-fired boilers, supercarriers are significantly larger than even the largest battleships. You are also incorrect about the production rate. The fastest any of the KGVs were built was the lead ship, being laid down on January 1, 1937 and commissioned on October 1, 1940, with initial operating capability not coming until early 1941 - meaning a total construction time of 3 years and 9 months. Likewise, the fastest any Yamato-class was built was Yamato herself, being laid down on November 4, 1937 and commissioned on December 16, 1941, for a total construction time of 5 years, 1 month, and 12 days. Still significantly faster than Ford, but nowhere near as fast as you describe.
@@GintaPPE1000 Bringing down the construction time to half a year would raise the chances of successfully dealing with a situation in which multiple carriers are lost in quick succession. That day is coming and the US is being complacent. Contracts should be opened up to the public for whoever can innovate around the problem, bring down build times, build a better product and cut costs.
@@mentos93 I can offer some guesses. They said it was an acid flush. Hazardous chemicals would mean storage concerns, training concerns, safety concerns and disposal concerns. They also said it was "regular acid flushes" but didn't detail how often that flush has to happen. Is it weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Yes, it's expensive and possibly wasteful, however there may also be good reasons for some or most of that cost.
@@mentos93 I did do some further reading. The report denotes that the system must be flushed "often" and each flush is $400k, but it doesn't indicate how often "often" is. It also appears that these issues were known before the ship set to sea.
Aircraft carriers are relevant due to their ability to remain at sea for prolong periods of time. Regardless of technological advances throughout history, ships have remain a necessary tool for war
Nope If by 'war' you mean a police action focused on a third world nation, then sure. Otherwise, do you know what the submarine force calls surface vessels?
@@DumbledoreMcCracken idk if you’re aware but an aircraft carrier is accompanied by other warships and submarine. I think it’ll be safe against a sub attack. This isn’t WW2
We spend a ton on education and healthcare. The money is being spent poorly. Medicare and Medicaid cant even negotiate prices like private insurance. The Navy facilities trillions in trade and allows infrastructure to be useful.
@@cmdr1911 ah yes trillions in the pockets of the weapon giants industry! lets be real it's not nearly supporting the amount of workers you'd think such amounts of cash would. This means most the money goes into the pockets of wealthy CEOs. Talk about corporate socialism! aka corruption.
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey Never said a word about the jobs or where the money goes. There is waste and corruption in every agency and that is a different conversation. Spending on education and infrastructure isn't the issue. The money is inefficiently spend on welfare programs to the point they are damaging to the people. Military spending doesnt take away from other parts with the way the federal government spends money.
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey the us spends 760 billion on the military, 23 percent goes to the employees, the corporations pay the employees money too. don't assume the money is getting hoarded by the rich
I heard that a tiny sub made in Sweden was able to get several shots on a defended carrier during a military exercise. That really puts things into perspective, and I know that’s not enough to take down one of these ships but such an attack would put something of this size out of commission making it useless. I believe multiple smaller carriers are a better option.
@@kuiper921 What about artificial islands like the ones China is creating? Can't they replace aircraft carriers considering Navy and military are used for deterrence rather than actual war?
Collusion does not mean integration. Almost all foreign military shipyards are state-owned and state-run; since most of them are not dedicated military yards, the operations of the companies' military divisions are technically the only state-owned component, but it makes little difference. While US yards collaborate with each other (General Dynamics and Newport News have done so for our submarines since the Sturgeon-class of the 1970s), the structure of those collaborations is not the same as outright single ownership. Each yard is given different parts of the ship to both design and build, while the Navy's own design bureau also retains design authority over a large part of the ship, and delegates construction work of those parts to either of the two yards. For state-run military shipbuilding, all design work is contracted to the company, and even if they split work across multiple yards like DCNS in France does, they share a single design team.
Obviously you guys haven't spent anytime at sea onboard an aircraft carrier, I can say with great confidence that we need aircraft carriers. Just sending an aircraft carrier to an area that might get hostile is enough to prevent wars! I spent 44 months onboard the aircraft carrier USS Independence, CV-62 between October 1974 until June 1978 and our presence at sea helped keep the cold war from getting hot.
These aircraft carrier can only use against the enemy that doesn't have long range guided missile or submarine like in Iraq war or Syrian war. Russia or China can destroy these floating field from thousands miles away easily.
@@scipioprime69 interceptors can't be relied upon 100%,do you remember Iranian cruise missiles hitting Saudi oil facilites,they evaded the patriot missiles defense systems
We should invest more in smaller less expensive carriers but I definitely don’t think we should just ditch them . A huge tactical advantage for navy strikes .
@@gogo8965 yep and US shot down airbus in 1988. Oh yeah they even got medal and flower for that. "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are" ~ george HW bush Just another day in US
The reason why they’ll likely stay relevant is carriers are more than just carriers, they’re floating US military bases and command stations. The 12 billion is still paying US based jobs through multiple shipyard and tech companies and that money is being recirculated back into the economy. We’ve gotten almost 50 years out of the Nimitz class so you can expect the Ford class to stay in service at least until 2070. Ford class is also cheaper to operate and requires less navy personal - who are all being paid and will be many will be getting a healthy retirement for the rest of their life.
@@rjallenbach1 I agree with you but where is it written that a weapon should cost a certain amount if it's used for a particular purpose? Weapons do evolve. As they do they're expected to cost more.
@@rjallenbach1 I mean, I get what you're saying, but few here are experts in the field, and I guarantee you not a single person who sees this comment has any knowledge in God knows how many classified projects are currently underway. People can express their opinions all they want, don't get me wrong, but it's pointless in my opinion.
If you really think about it, carriers were so effective in WWII because other than planes, they stood fairly unopposed in the waters. Submarine technology was not nearly good enough to sneak past all the escorts, missiles were also non-existent. These days, the major powers have plenty of subs and an abundance of anti-ship missiles. The US AGM-158C only costs about 4 million per unit according to publicly available data. That means even if 1000 missiles are used to sink a single carrier, it would only cost about 4 billion compared to nearly 14 billion of the USS Gerald R. Ford. This excludes the cost of the aircraft and loss of manpower. As a result, are large carriers really worth it in this day and age?
Cant that be said for any ship? Are they not all just as vulnerable and much more expensive than a missile? Why bother with a Navy at all? Come to think it, that works for tanks and planes too. And yeah, soldiers, aren’t they more expensive than a bullet? I think there aspects to warfare you are not including.
@@TheBooban You technically aren't wrong. Just about everything except for the soldiers will at some point become unnecessary. You realize that those other ships are much cheaper relatively speaking per unit. They can even be considered expendable. Carriers being sunk is not only a massive tank to money and resources but morale as well. Battleships are the best example of a once-dominant naval technology being obsolete. The German Bismarck and Japanese Yamato are the best and most well-known examples. Tons of money poured in but as warfare tactics during that time solidified, they became obsolete the moment they were completed due to new technologies. It could arguably be said history is repeating itself with the carriers. Smaller vessels such as frigates have remained prominent for hundreds of years. Their relatively low cost, utility, and flexibility offset their disadvantages. Also, the reason we have not replaced navies is that technology has not allowed us to do so. MBTs do seem to be less effective according to some studies done by the Chinese. Infantry firepower has gotten to the point where squads can consistently take out tanks. That's why they have been holding off on the deployment of the type 99s and changing to the type 15 and existing type 96. Airplanes could theoretically eventually be replaced with drones and things like that. Therefore, they would meet obsolescence at some point too. The only staple part of a military is infantry. They have been and always will be the bread and butter of warfare. The best technologies will eventually be phased out or used up. TL;DR: In essence, pretty much anything other than the soldiers themselves will at some point become unnecessary. It's only a matter of lack of better current choice.
In an era of high hypersonic missiles, drones , advanced electronic emp devices, biological warfare , a.i., geometrically advancing technology , time building elements , vulnerability of ports , .... yes the carrier and large ships will be obsolete in a major war if not already .
I think investing in huge aircraft carriers in general is a lost cause , developing more and more sofisticated missiles systems and put them on small agile and cheaper ships will make this things useless in my opinion .
Obviously I’m going to be biased as a Brit but I really think the royal navy’s new carriers have got something going for themselves, have the space for 70 ish aircraft in surge conditions and costs 1/3 of a Ford class carrier
but they can't operate AWACS nor air refueling aircraft which is all important and the only type of jet they can launch is the most crippled version of the already not so great F35. if only the UK wouldn't have canceled the catapults and arresting wires because of budget restrictions they would have had a proper aircraft carrier instead of a helicopter carrier.
@@swunt10 we have less capable helicopter awacs but there is space int he current design to refit the ship with catapults and traps, all the space for the equipment is still there below deck, it would of course cost money but if someone decided in 20 years they want an angled deck it won’t take too much effort to convert. Also there’s nothing about the f35b that makes it crippled
@@TheDrummingWarrior "Also there’s nothing about the f35b that makes it crippled" except that's wrong.. the F35B weights more than the other variants, is limited to 7G's instead of 9G's, has a bring back capability of almost nothing, it's also the slowest variant and has less range than the other variants. it also has the lowest take of weight meaning to be able to launch the thing it can neither carry enough fuel nor enough weapons which makes the lack of air to air refueling capability of the british carriers even more depressing. what the UK politicians who over ruled the navy opted for is saving some money on an angled deck with catapults and arresting gear in exchange for having almost no capabilities. yet they still have the costs of operating 2 carriers and lots of very expensive F35 jets. some old freighter converted to carry a number of helicopters with some rockets strapped to the sides would have saved even more money... PS if you think they will ever convert the 2 ships to proper carriers think again. they just build the 2 ships and opted not to install the catapults and arresting wires AND they bough many billions worth of F35Bs. no one will retrofit catapults to these ships, not within the next 30 years where the F35Bs will be used nor after 30 years when retrofitting expensive catapults and arresting gear in a 1 year long retrofit dock exercise to some then quite old ships will make even less sense. no, the QE carriers will be stuck with F35Bs and that's it. the only solution here would be to at least develop, as has been proposed in the US, an air refueling variant of the tilt rotor osprey and ideally also an AWACS variant of the osprey. then at least the F35Bs could launch with a relevant number of weapons on board and then laboriously refuel air to air before going on a mission while a long range AWACS commands the battle space. that wont make the F35Bs any better at dodging rockets or going very far but at least it would give them a chance to even get somewhere while carrying some weapons.
@@swunt10 and just to remind you, the Uk is buying the F35B to replace the harrier and the tornado, it is not our primary fighter it will be a strike aircraft first and foremost
Can we please stop the Trump impressions? He's banned from Twitter and out of office. At this point you're just killing your own brain cells for a worn out joke.
@@romancultist6089 So what happens to people who can’t afford insurance in US? Will health care on medical expense be affordable to them? What can another Aircraft Carrier do for the people in US? Good governance is thinking of the welfare for the people first and not building another weapon to show dominance around the world which the US citizens do not benefit. In my country we put the people first. School and medical fees are subsidised to ensure all generations and working class can afford it. That’s what I call good governance in a first world country.
@@aloysiustan1765 good governance is defending the thing you govern. This is a dangerous world full of stupid people. Carriers provide force projection. If you don’t know what that means, then you need not participate in the conversation any longer. As far as the people? The citizens of the US don’t need to be “taken care of”. Americans figure it out. Health care reform and military dominance are not mutually exclusive. If you were an American you’d realize that.
@@VoteForBukele I agree! Defending what you govern is crucial. But having force of projection to take over the world? There are 11 Aircraft Carriers owned by the US, which is 5 times more than any other countries. My military experience tells me that they want to dominate the whole world and therefore there won’t be peace. It’s funny how the world is only dangerous place when the US intervenes other country’s politics for political gains. Al-Qaeda & ISIS was created by none other than the US. Financing them and arming them to fight their common enemies. Now they turn their back on the rest of the world making it a dangerous place for us. Sure maybe US want to help stop dictatorship but you dont see another country come and intervene US affairs when there’s one. Sure I may not be an American but I’m sure you alone don’t speak for the rest of the American’s living conditions in the US.
@@aloysiustan1765 You finally said something relevant. You’re not American, therefore your opinion is invalid. End of story. But thank you for your concern. We’ll be fine. Worry about yourself.
Save for the fact that China IS an actual threat. If any government deserves the title of "Modern Day Nazis" it's the CCP. They are almost using every page in Hitler's playbook.
@@sdprz7893 no no, I mean they'll still be relevant. Maybe not super carriers but the capabilitys they provide cant be matched. The US Navy doctrine allows the escort ships I.E. cruisers and destroyers to focus on air defense while the carriers and focus on strike capabilities with their aircraft. Simply put carriers are a force multiplier that cant be matched even by ballistic anti ship missles
If America didn't spend so much money trying to defend it's Empire they would probably have high speed rail to all major cities in America. What a waste of time and money...
So much worthless spending. America focuses more on foreign citizens than their own. We shouldn’t be sending billions in foreign aid and even more on keeping a huge military to police the world against “dictators”.
You want health care? Pay it yourself. Don't expect me to subsidize every fatty, alcoholic, or druggie that can't pay for the damage they did to their body.
The carrier looks like a perfect target for a nuclear warhead, a lot of high value equipment concentrated in a very small area. It is hard to find a better target.
Sure, but using nuclear weapons crosses a line and escalates any potential conflict to a level that China (the obvious other party in this scenario) may not want to risk.
Consider a chess game between two people, one has to lose every piece before they lose the game, and the other can lose by checkmate. The problem with the aircraft carrier strategy is that they're too vital, it relies upon the carriers being untouchable which may well be the case in asymmetric warfare but against another large industrialized nation the cost to benefit ratio is just too good. How many anti-ship missiles can two billion dollars buy? How many missiles can a carrier group defend against? I'm sure it's a lot but even damaging a carrier is a major strategic victory, if it's listing it can't launch aircraft so it has to return to an allied port that has dry docks big enough for a carrier to be repaired and that could be hundreds of miles away. So now does the entire carrier group escort the carrier to safety which takes their presence out of the theater or do you send it back, this incredibly vital ship, with a reduced escort? I think the future is in smaller more expendable ships.
To force Iran not to make a nuclear bomb is better than spending $ $ on making new carriers, China CCP & Russia will take a very long time to match, China CCP are rust leaking buckets, they can't fight Americans for years in navy.
Depends on whether a country wants to build defensive capabilities or offensive. You'll need at least an order of magnitude more investment in offensive assets to beat the other side's defenses. If you want offense capabilities, you need to invest in aircraft carriers.
At 1:00 you ask if aircraft carriers are worth the cost. Yes, if they weren't then why are more allied and adversarial countries building them or buying them. It's not just the western navies, but also Asian and some Middle Eastern countries that are building up their carrier numbers.
No one can afford a full scale war. There is little to gain from it and much to loose. Small local skirmishes yes. Some stealth operations surely. One does not need 12 carrier groups for that.
A lot of armchair Generals... Er, Admirals in the comment section. A lot of the criticisms of carriers may be valid. However, the US uses the ever-loving crap out of the 10 active super carriers they have, exemplified recently by the Biden administration sending two of them over to Chinas backyard. Deployments of the Nimitz carriers have pushed the ships to the limits of the lifetime power production design of their nuclear reactors. If the us navy wants to move away from super carriers fine... stop deploying the ones we have so much. Probably not going to happen any time soon. Carriers have the primary function of being the US asset that the chief executive can use to affect international relations. Which is why they are deployed so frequently. They reassure allies and have defused more than one crisis. To give them up is to give up a globalist security policy and move towards isolation. That’s how such a move would be perceived in the rest of the world. The America class simply cannot carry the flag the way the Nimitz and Ford class carriers do.
This makes much sense. The video really does not address the question it specifically raises about vulnerability to long range missiles. I am aware of the supposed tactical defence of the high-frequency ballistic defences, but that was not really probed. It is inescapable that such massive assets cannot manoeuvre fast, to “dodge”. The top brass MUST know this. So I wonder if the true “defence” is the enemy’s fear of what America might do, if you ever dared destroy so high profile & precious an asset, with a relatively cheap missile. Am guessing that no foreign power wants to be the first to find out the answer to that particular puzzler! 🤔
@@galactyx1 It's not like there aren't missile defense systems in place and not just on ships on the outer edge of a Strike Group. In order to actually get through that defense screen they would have to launch an number of missiles such as they wouldn't be cost effective to sink just one ship.
@@Zoten001 OK, but in my mind’s eye, such a remote, long-range missile’s attack vector would be primarily ‘vertical’, coming down from high altitude in the airspace “above” the Aircraft Carrier, rather than through the co-ordinates “around” it. At least, it would if I was specifying the missile design!
@@galactyx1 while ballistic and cruise missiles are a potentially threat to carriers, the us navy has a number of ways of countering them. one is the surface fleet that protects the ship, another is its air wing, and another is how, when and where carriers are deployed. There are also other factors in play that play well to carriers defending against that kind of threat. That’s not to say they’re not a problem, but it is one that can be managed a number of ways. I think the bigger threat is likely the risk of submarine attacks. These are, in many cases, harder to defend against and war games have demonstrated that these attacks can succeed. Ultimately, however, neither threat changes the fact that for the time being the US uses its larger carriers primarily to influence and support foreign policy. If a major war with a peer power breaks out, I suspect that their use would quickly change, but when such a conflict will occurs no one can say. -It may be decades away it maybe within a few years. Whatever the case, Until carriers cease to be of the utility they are now, the US will likely maintain its fleet of around 10 active super carriers to keep the status quo
@@johnfosteriii5792 You are very naive and ignorant of technology if you can't see carrier's increasing vulnerability. I'm too busy to waste further time on ignoramuses. Good luck!
@@johnfosteriii5792 I went through some ROTC with a former Commander-in-Chief and later generals, but during the Vietnam War era the government wanted me to finish my graduate studies in a technical field vital to national security. After graduate school and law school, I prepared and prosecuted some patent applications also vital to national security, including some on aviation, boat design, and remote means of passively eavesdropping. This is all easily verifiable online, and by the way, my ROTC days go back to the mid-1960s when I was a classmate of Donald Trump, see his graduating yearbook, The Shrapnel 1964, available online through the classmates website. DT and I were friends, although he was several years ahead of me. Countermeasures are relatively easy. It's a matter of thermodynamics. Sorry if I seemed impolite. Thank you for your service.
@@johnfosteriii5792 You tell 'em, John! They said the same thing about battleships 70 years ago, and we now know battleships are better defended than ever.
I love the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class. I think four of these ships modified for the US Navy would be a good investment. I think they would be better than the America class ships mainly because of that bigger flight deck. The Americas are good for their specialty, supporting the Marines. The QEs could better fill a light carrier niche, whether they be operated as F35B carriers or maybe be modified with arresting gear as STOBAR carriers or with EM catapults. Those ideas failed within the UK mission parameters and budget, but the QEs form that baseline to speed up the design of a new CVL.
the QE or the Trieste class with the F-35B would be fine. the answers are there, 1) the osprey can become a tanker for the F35, the tilt rotor can operate from this vessel type. 2) the AEW/ASAC role could also be performed by the v22 ( elbit aesa radar canoe fairing would work on the type if modified to wind tunnel modeling). so the range of the F35b is increased through air to air refuelling and aew is enabled adding to flexibility of missions. Marines have operated from the type so pilots know the vessel class. there is no doubt the ships could add to the ability of the US forces.
When they tried to sink the aircraft carrier USS America, they could not do it. So they had to scuttle the ship in a weapons testing like most of the WW2 carriers that were lost. These boys did not talk about that. These ships DIE HARD
The argument of "big ships, easy targets" is not always true. Aircraft carriers are huge but have a vast array of defense systems that will make any attempt to destroy it next to impossible. They're also not made for ship-to-ship combat and therefore are do not operate from naval frontlines. Less big carriers are way better than more smaller carriers.
@@briant5685 Big or small, the chances are the same in this case, but the big carrier will have a better chance of protecting itself because of more powerful defense systems on board. You'll be surprised what the US military has in terms of technology.
@@AA-os2bf Not against a modern quiet submarine which already happened twice in training. I also doubt a carrier can intercept a group of hypersonic missiles traveling at more than 2-3 machs. If I were you I wouldn't overestimate defensive capabilities.
@@ntf5211 The submarine thing happened during trials and got corrected as far as I know. Either way, bigger carriers still have more protective capability than smaller ones.
On one hand, WW2 made it clear that single large ships are often very costly in resources and easy targets. On the other hand, light carriers without much state of the art defence can be sitting ducks. I personally think that multiple lighter platforms supported by advanced cruisers is the best bet.
People in this comment section don’t understand that a carrier is part of a strike group MILES in diameter. “One missile can sink an entire carrier.” That doesn’t make any sense. In what logic is a single missile going to be able to penetrate a protective barrier that has 20+ ships and 10 miles thick?
Very recently a US "amphibious" assault carrier demonstrated its ability to launch 24 F-35Bs. That platform all of a sudden became a major offensive center for the US Navy.
That's a dangerous policy. For even if one does not just mind their own business, but the rest do, you will be at the mercy of the one who doesn't just mind their business. And on the global scale of things, the different countries business overlaps. Take for instance Russia. They provide most of Europe with natural gas. Those countries have a keen interest in what happens in Russia as it might effect their countries if the gas is cut off or even just cut back. So minding their own business means they have to mind yours as well.
Carrier groups will need to be equipped with anti-missile defences that protect it against super/hypersonic missiles. If they don't they will go the way of the battleship. A big part of Russia/China strategy is to deny carrier forces access, in other words prevent them from getting close enough to do damage. Another idea might be to build a missile carrier. Build a ship the size of an aircraft carrier that is loaded with vertical launcing tubes for (long distance) missiles. Imagine when you see your radar screen light up with a 1000 super/hypersonic missiles in a matter of minutes....
The sheer flexibility of Carriers is unmatched Change the aircraft compliment and you can massively change it's combat performance. The power projection is unmatched Vulnerable? Sure just like any other Warship. If they are so Vulnerable why are so many countries building them now?
Okay...so there are cost overruns and engineering issues. No machine of this size and complexity is ever perfect at first. Tell us something that we don't know. But you'd have to be completely devoid of any historical knowledge to ask the necessity of aircraft carriers.
fun fact: a submarine (not even the most modern ones) can sink a 12B$ super carrier (basically "happened" 2 times in exercise, once with a Sweedish and once with a French submarine)
I am not a small military budget type, but I feel we could use older decommissioned carriers as housing for the homeless. Hell, in private hands, they’d make great Airbnbs as well.
Those people don't know what they are talking about, but the navy brass knows what they need and is building it or applying for changes to make their service more efficient and right now the service is using less personnel on their ships to do the same job and more and saving the service money.
I was stationed on Carriers for 5 years during the Cold War 80s.....Big Crews are there for redundancy.....Dead men can't fight...or put out fires etc...
The idea that carriers will be obsolete in the near future is crazy. No country including the US has ICBM's that can reliably hit a carrier cruising at 34mph over 500 miles away. It requires a long and complex blockchain of commands from multiple satellites, and thats ignoring the fact the US has been working on anti-satellite weapons since Star Wars, and successfully destroyed a satellite in 2002. Considering how fast tech is evolving I'm sure its much more impressive than it was almost 20 years ago. Oh and there in no enemy submarine that will be able to sneak through a carriers defense to hit it with the 5-6 torpedo's that would be required to sink a modern aircraft carrier.
In WW2 the US was churning out carriers to overwhelm the Japanese. They could lose them and the war machine still kept trucking. Today, to lose a carrier would be a heavy blow. It's not a good idea to have any sort of hardware in your military without which you would be done.
US Navy should never away from high technology especially carriers we need them especially now and for the future to deal with dangerous countries like Russia and China
Russia and China really aren't as dangerous as they or even we think they are. From a military standpoint they don't really have a chance, sure they have nukes but so do we.
if Boeing makes fighter planes and satellites for USA, it's business and progress, if Chinese companies make commercial and military products, it's a problem. Double standard
I think the US should invest in autonomous ships that can be built in large scales for a low prices and fitted for all kinds of tasks. That way we spare money and risk less lives of navy personal.
How about you call the the title for this video: "We dont know the future of Air Craft Carriers..."
Exactly what a waste of time.
My guest is the next aircraft carriers will be "spacecraft carriers" and will move in space itself.
@@gustavolasanta1482 Maybe you should try to form your own opinions from relevant information, instead of getting spoon-fed with conclusions...
@@wayne9287 I hope this isn't something you seriously think will be next because there is a lot of reasons why having some sort of space carrier is just not ever gonna work any time soon.
@@arts6821 I know it was a little bit ambitious lol
When are we gonna get that flyin' aircraft carrier Nick Fury had on the Avengers?
One line: "You want my technology? You can't have it!" - Tony Stark, Iron Man 2 (2010)
Why do you type with an accent
@@TempName525 Why do you type without utilizing punctuation?
@@jocopowell bc it’s faster
Elon is working on it right now
I would like to see this topic discussed by actual navy personnel, from the lower enlisted all the way to the admirals
The answer is we need them PERIOD.
As a former sailor who spent 44 months onboard the aircraft carrier USS Independence, CV-62 I know from my experience at sea that we keep the peace and that is a global mission. We only go to war if that is the mission!
Yes, we need them. Only way to project force anywhere.
Yeap if peace with no military spending was possible it would be awesome, but humanity taught us that others will come and crush you. So if it keeps peace, spend and keep getting better at what you do. Thank you for your work 👊
We need them for Defense purposes.
I'm just here to check on how my tax money's doin'. Evening folks.
"Your tax money just bought a baby yacht that fits inside my regular yacht. Thank you for keeping us afloat (pun intended) in these stressful uncertain times. Plebe."- sincerely, America's Billionaires
@@RikoJAmado o yeah thx ass hole lol
YOUR right, YOUR TAX MONEY because how MANY TRUMP TYPES ARE PAYING as little as $750 a year
Check out Nancy Pelosi Mansion and pat yourself... now that’s real info that didn’t came from “reliable sources” and “stellar journalists” or any any peabody and emmy awardees 👍👍👍
@@TitoBobbyPh Making this a Democrat vs Republican thing just shows how immensely stupid you are.
Both parties are bought by corporations and the rich. Republicans just a smudge more since they don't really have any politician funded small donations. Democrats have like 4 or 5.. Big whoop.
China supposedly has Carrier Killer Missiles yet are still building aircraft carriers. That speaks volumes as to how important aircraft carriers are still for any navy
Carriers provide value add when up against countries that have no means of sinking them. Perhaps China’s investment into carriers are for 1) power projection and international engagements with non super powers
2) developing landmark projections that embolden domestic nationalism
@Jason Y.: I think China uses it's carrier as a forward airfield for its planes in a defensive role whereas it is used in an offensive role for US.
As usual politics is inseparable from warfare. In a nice clean fair US vs China over some neutral island carriers are probably not vary useful because of ballistic missiles and submarines(despite the advancements in countermeasures) . But as a tool to bully other countries. Yea still good for that. And non break glass conflicts even between super powers where firing ballistic missiles might be frowned upon. Yea still good for that. But note China as a percentage of GPS is spending much less than us on carriers. They clearly think they are less important than we do. In fact they spend much less on their military as a percentage of GDP at PPP than we do. I suspect they have realized that infrastructure, education, health care and research are a way better investment if you want to win a war 20 years from now than big pieces of metal.
这两者无法比较。美国航空母舰的目标是全球海洋，而中国航空母舰只想保障印度洋贸易航线的绝对安全，这条贸易航线是中国经济大动脉之一。至于中国的反舰弹道导弹，它只是绝对防御武器，用于限制而非完全禁止美国航空母舰在亚太的行动能力。
Chinese carriers are built to protect their coasts and islands in the Chinese Sea. No need for nuclear because they are always close to their motherland.
There is no separation in the US either.
"Private" industry and The Pentagon are symbiotic.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Liberals go back to the same phrases. In WW1 they called them the "merchants of death" then the "complex" these merchants save our lives with every weapon they create because of the deterrence of them all is an arm race that will prove to a psyche of a state that kinetic warfare is not a action with dividends to be gotten ie Hitler calling the people at Munich worms because pacifist were to be hated not Reciprocated
Thanks for your comments.
Need more knowledge on Bitcoin trading and binary investment??
Contact Mrs Sandra Bob +1 4 3 7 7 0 3 6 6 9 2
Friendly reminder that a USN Carrier Strike Group is capable of traveling over 700 nautical miles in a single day. Making it the most maneuverable and destructive military unit to ever exist outside of SSBNs.
@@woodynorris8224 Not true. First, sophisticated adverse countries know exactly the current location of the carrier to program their missiles. Second , the carrier never sails alone. The group can travel only as fast as the slowest ship in the convoy, which is the always accompanying attack submarine of the group. You can half the speed and range. Besides, at full speed they don't get far because they would need to refuel pretty soon. And the refuel supply ships would be sunk quickly in advance because they are slow moving targets. So no, a carrier group today is quite constrained in their real world capabilities. Their best use was to cruise at the coast of a 3rd. world country and threaten them to comply to their demands. Those times are over.
@@DilbertMuc Simply finding an aircraft carrier at a particular moment in time won't satisfy an attacker's targeting requirements. Once the carrier is spotted, the attacker must make a series of command decisions leading to the launch of weapons, and then the weapons must
transit the space between their point of origin and the carrier. While all this is occurring, the carrier is moving. During a 30-minute period, it may have maneuvered anywhere within a circle measuring 700 square miles. Over 90 minutes, the area grows to 6000
square miles. In a day - if it is cruising in a straight line at high speed - it can move over 700 nm from where it was first sighted.
In order to keep up with the carrier's movements, an attacker must establish a continuous track of the vessel using some combination of land-based, sea-based, space-based and airborne sensors. Moreover, the track must be sufficiently precise so that it can provide targeting coordinates to weapons when they arrive in the carrier's vicinity. As of today, even the United States has difficulty accomplishing such a feat, and no other nation is close to having the requisite capabilities.
@@DilbertMuc And ships don't have to refuel as nearly as frequent as you are making it out to be.
@@hieuphungminh6690 If that is the case then the Russian (or Chinese) anti-carrier missiles and hypersonic missiles fail to work in theory and reality. I guess they figured that out. Anyway, the carrier group's location is always known by satellites and their precise location is exactly known when they approach the coast of Russia or China. Take the max. range of the planes and take 40% of it and that is the closest distance the carrier group can approach an adversary, which is roughly 250-300 miles. 300 miles can cover any modern radar. The carrier group can only cruise up and down the coast within a narrow strip. Too far and the planes can't fly, too close and the threat of missiles and precise radars is too high. When recent tensions between Iran and USA were high, their carrier group stayed in the Arabic Sea outside the range of Iranian anti-ship missiles, for a reason.
@@hieuphungminh6690 They do if they run at 30-35 knots. That's why they sail at cruising speed of 20. Cargo ships are even much slower to save fuel. Remember, water has friction resistance of 1000x of air and resistance increases exponentially with speed.
As effective as the supercarriers are, it makes me a bit queasy to think that an unlucky break in a squabble with China could sink the perception of American strength with the loss of a single ship... The symbolic power of such goliaths is a double-edged sword.
Exactly. They only need to succeed once or even get kinda close. The one(s) trying to kick down at a defence find it cheaper to try newer things until something works.
These carriers are mobile airbase. Air dominance in war is a big advantage on the outcome...
Thanks for your comments.
Need more knowledge on Bitcoin trading and binary investment??
Contact Mrs Sandra Bob +1 4 3 7 7 0 3 6 6 9 2
@@diannawoodhill7124 Im sure you are a spam bot
also sinkable and unrepairable airbase, babe. they just haven't bullied a nation with enough icbm or long-range anti-ship missiles yet.
CNBC doing that 10:01 second i see u 👀
they tryna make mooney
😂😂
@Simon Zhu Earlier this was the minimum time needed to monetize videos.. No longer needed but still a lot of people stick to it..
I served on the USS Kitty Hawk & USS John C. Stennis over 11 years ago. Each class of warship provides a different support to naval warfare overall. I believe we need more submarines though. Silent but deadly underwater to crawl right under the enemies nose is invaluable. Electric Boat can build 4-5 Virginia class subs for every 1 Ford class carrier, and that's still way less recruitment of new sailors to man those subs than the carrier
Subs are a decent counter, I'd send a dozen interceptors housing dozens of suicide drones and a few hypersonic missiles launched from the other side of the world. The hyper swarm combo.
Electric Boat has no surge capacity for Virginias, nor does Newport News. What surplus manufacturing capacity they have is taken up by the Colombia-class.
They have a really hard time getting people who are willing to work on subs tho
@@GintaPPE1000 True, I am a welder at EB. It's not so easy to find good shipbuilders who can pass a drug test
@@AlphaFoxDelta Warships, anti-missile defense systems, advanced radar, fighter jets can detect and neutralize these. I'm not saying it's easy
we need to spend all our money to make an avengers helicarrier
That wouldn’t be practical and could easily get shot down by a SAM.
@@TheLiamster Actually a blimp is a legitimate asset for maintaining air superiority. I mean you could send one blimp with an armada of ships and destroy a land locked country. The other useful one is a Starship like thing that has a hanger to drop aircraft from.
@@KRYMauL yeah, there was a an Army program called JLENS which used radars mounted on blimps to detect and track aircraft and missiles. The program got cancelled because it was easier to just use AWACS aircraft and ground or ship based radars.
@@KRYMauL blimps wouldn’t likely be used offensively in an actual war because they are vulnerable and unlike aircraft they don’t have any active countermeasures
@@TheLiamster Look up the newer blimp designs for relief efforts they would make for some lethal weapons of war.
"Gotta reach that 10:01 minutes threshold!"
It’s actually 8 minutes form a few years ago
Even if the Navy don't want them, they will get them. Those congressional districts will claw you to death if you take their jobs away.
America will not progress if keep spending money to destroy things. Build bridges and hospitals. Better schools. Stop spending on military.
@@lewislane1143 Which is something I totally agree with you.
@@lewislane1143 Military, especially these aircraft carriers, are the backbone of American imperialism. There is no way the government would turn away from it and spend more money on American people
The HII yards both have plenty of business without the CVN and LHA programs. Newport News has both Virginia-class and Colombia-class submarines, and Ingalls has LPD, Burke III, NSC, and LCS support.
@@lewislane1143 yet American infrastructure is still the most advanced in the western world and the budget for education is still larger than the next 11 countries combined
Aircraft carriers = Showing off your BIG muscles around the world.
Greetings from Germany...🍺
Right I've had a think - We ditch the Carrier and build a raft by tying some logs together. We power it up with hamster wheels and put a gun on it - Build 1 million rafts just like this one!
Just put a man with a minigun that has anti armor rounds
" Alright boys were going to war"
@@captainzach6226 Right . . . We get Arnie and we get Stallone and clone them. Strap em up with miniguns and a crate of ammo!
Plus a few grenades if we have any surplus cash left over, after firing Tom Cruise & Val Kilmer from the Naval fleet!
There's not enough competition in the industry. If there was it wouldn't take a decade to build one.
Yeah back in the day the British churned out battleships of a similar size yearly and the Japanese built the Yamatos in a shorter time.
Pretty much, there really isn’t any reason to rush carrier production. The US has what? 10+ super carriers that are all nuclear powered. China is building their 3rd but the ones they have aren’t nuclear powered and the Chinese navy lacks the experience for carrier operations like the USN.
Russia has only 1 (that’s debatable if it’s still in good shape). India is building their own but again, non nuclear and India isn’t an adversary of the US. Everyone else is an ally of the US. There isn’t any need like you said to speed build new Gerald R Ford carriers.
There isn't a reason to build them faster, and if the Navy built them faster, they would need to at least partially-fund the infrastructure improvements necessary to make that happen.
@@Rosu2022 The largest British battleships ever built were the King George V class of 1939, which was 745 feet long, 103ft wide, and displaced about 43000 tons at full load. A Nimitz-class carrier is 1092ft long, 252ft wide, and displaces 102,000 tons at full load. Even the Yamato-class battleship measures only 862ft long, 127ft wide, and displaces 72,000 tons. Even setting aside the fact that a nuclear power plant is far more complex than standard oil-fired boilers, supercarriers are significantly larger than even the largest battleships.
You are also incorrect about the production rate. The fastest any of the KGVs were built was the lead ship, being laid down on January 1, 1937 and commissioned on October 1, 1940, with initial operating capability not coming until early 1941 - meaning a total construction time of 3 years and 9 months. Likewise, the fastest any Yamato-class was built was Yamato herself, being laid down on November 4, 1937 and commissioned on December 16, 1941, for a total construction time of 5 years, 1 month, and 12 days. Still significantly faster than Ford, but nowhere near as fast as you describe.
@@GintaPPE1000 Bringing down the construction time to half a year would raise the chances of successfully dealing with a situation in which multiple carriers are lost in quick succession. That day is coming and the US is being complacent. Contracts should be opened up to the public for whoever can innovate around the problem, bring down build times, build a better product and cut costs.
jesus christ, so it basically cost $400,000 to flush toilets??? SMFH
400K is pennies for the military.
But how is that possible? Is someone filling their own pockets?
@@mentos93 I can offer some guesses. They said it was an acid flush. Hazardous chemicals would mean storage concerns, training concerns, safety concerns and disposal concerns. They also said it was "regular acid flushes" but didn't detail how often that flush has to happen. Is it weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Yes, it's expensive and possibly wasteful, however there may also be good reasons for some or most of that cost.
@@Paethgoat that makes sense.
@@mentos93 I did do some further reading. The report denotes that the system must be flushed "often" and each flush is $400k, but it doesn't indicate how often "often" is. It also appears that these issues were known before the ship set to sea.
Aircraft carriers are relevant due to their ability to remain at sea for prolong periods of time. Regardless of technological advances throughout history, ships have remain a necessary tool for war
Yup
Nope
If by 'war' you mean a police action focused on a third world nation, then sure.
Otherwise, do you know what the submarine force calls surface vessels?
@@DumbledoreMcCracken idk if you’re aware but an aircraft carrier is accompanied by other warships and submarine. I think it’ll be safe against a sub attack. This isn’t WW2
@@kenxiong6830 submarines tell me the submarine force calls surface vessels "targets".
@@DumbledoreMcCracken you know what depth charges call submarines? You guessed it, targets
We need a Rear Admiral of Sewage to purge the bilge
I am good for that job.
Carriers are the next battle ship. White elephant that can be taken out of the fight quickly and cheaply.
if they can be taken out quickly and cheaply why hasn’t anyone done it lol
@@Will-yz7sy because none of the global powers are at war sherlock holmes.
I admire the way Americans can talk as though it is so wrong for others to do what they are doing all along.
We are wasting to much money on the military equipments while spending less on education and infrastructure
We spend a ton on education and healthcare. The money is being spent poorly. Medicare and Medicaid cant even negotiate prices like private insurance. The Navy facilities trillions in trade and allows infrastructure to be useful.
@@cmdr1911 ah yes trillions in the pockets of the weapon giants industry! lets be real it's not nearly supporting the amount of workers you'd think such amounts of cash would. This means most the money goes into the pockets of wealthy CEOs. Talk about corporate socialism! aka corruption.
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey Never said a word about the jobs or where the money goes. There is waste and corruption in every agency and that is a different conversation. Spending on education and infrastructure isn't the issue. The money is inefficiently spend on welfare programs to the point they are damaging to the people. Military spending doesnt take away from other parts with the way the federal government spends money.
@@cmdr1911 yes ok lets keep the people dumb to better manipulate them and take advantage of that lol
@@MrFrancoisMorrissey the us spends 760 billion on the military, 23 percent goes to the employees, the corporations pay the employees money too. don't assume the money is getting hoarded by the rich
I heard that a tiny sub made in Sweden was able to get several shots on a defended carrier during a military exercise. That really puts things into perspective, and I know that’s not enough to take down one of these ships but such an attack would put something of this size out of commission making it useless. I believe multiple smaller carriers are a better option.
Snaller carriers can’t take on the planes that would be needed to keep it going right
@@kuiper921 What about artificial islands like the ones China is creating? Can't they replace aircraft carriers considering Navy and military are used for deterrence rather than actual war?
@@coolbuddyshivam those are costly and permanent, the point of a carrier is to be able to have a mobile airbase, kinda hard to move an island
Lmfao they talk as if US shipbuilding isn't colluding with the politicians.
they call it private-public partnership but i think its better called civil-military fusion.
Collusion does not mean integration. Almost all foreign military shipyards are state-owned and state-run; since most of them are not dedicated military yards, the operations of the companies' military divisions are technically the only state-owned component, but it makes little difference.
While US yards collaborate with each other (General Dynamics and Newport News have done so for our submarines since the Sturgeon-class of the 1970s), the structure of those collaborations is not the same as outright single ownership. Each yard is given different parts of the ship to both design and build, while the Navy's own design bureau also retains design authority over a large part of the ship, and delegates construction work of those parts to either of the two yards. For state-run military shipbuilding, all design work is contracted to the company, and even if they split work across multiple yards like DCNS in France does, they share a single design team.
Obviously you guys haven't spent anytime at sea onboard an aircraft carrier, I can say with great confidence that we need aircraft carriers. Just sending an aircraft carrier to an area that might get hostile is enough to prevent wars! I spent 44 months onboard the aircraft carrier USS Independence, CV-62 between October 1974 until June 1978 and our presence at sea helped keep the cold war from getting hot.
These aircraft carrier can only use against the enemy that doesn't have long range guided missile or submarine like in Iraq war or Syrian war. Russia or China can destroy these floating field from thousands miles away easily.
@Momo Kaka You think the people running the goddamn Navy haven't thought of this?
You're funny haha. Thats why theres a thing called interceptors. You should be in the pentagon for your brilliant mind haha.
I wouldn't say easily.
@@scipioprime69 interceptors can't be relied upon 100%,do you remember Iranian cruise missiles hitting Saudi oil facilites,they evaded the patriot missiles defense systems
Correct, good news is with Joe Biden, America will kowtow to the evil axis, he will send birthday cards to dictators rather than aircraft carrier
We should invest more in smaller less expensive carriers but I definitely don’t think we should just ditch them . A huge tactical advantage for navy strikes .
Without the carrier there is no air dominance.
then best stay home and have peace.btw the others also have planes.
Yea thanks to post WW2 we can’t do that. We’d love to do that as Americans but our NATO allies won’t let us
Aircraft carrier are symbol of power and might.
🇺🇸 💪 🚢
Yeah, so is a sword. But not much use on a modern battlefield.
No. Controlling COVID-19 is a symbol of power and might.
If the crapper system is backed up, carriers' gonna be in a whole world of sht......
What is sht?
@@misterbig9025
add the vowel "i" between "h" and "t" and you'll understand.
@@misterbig9025 comes out of the rectum laddy
They literally said Iran is good at missiles... The only thing they ever shot was a mock up of us carrier,lol
And a canadian passenger plane
@@gogo8965 Ukrainian passenger plane..
@@gogo8965 yep and US shot down airbus in 1988. Oh yeah they even got medal and flower for that.
"I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are" ~ george HW bush
Just another day in US
@@fatah496 US-Iran 1-1
Just a boogeyman to scare the people into tolerating higher military spending basically
When it Comes to Weaponry, I’ve always said...
“Its Better to Have it, & Not Need It...Then Need it, & Not Have It”
So, your Answer is: YES
Agree. If China and other countries are building their own carriers it’s obviously very important that we have ours 🇺🇸
@Working Hard its called national interest and all countries act like that
@Working Hard And we never said anything about India nor do we say anything about Europe having it either so you're wrong.
The reason why they’ll likely stay relevant is carriers are more than just carriers, they’re floating US military bases and command stations. The 12 billion is still paying US based jobs through multiple shipyard and tech companies and that money is being recirculated back into the economy. We’ve gotten almost 50 years out of the Nimitz class so you can expect the Ford class to stay in service at least until 2070. Ford class is also cheaper to operate and requires less navy personal - who are all being paid and will be many will be getting a healthy retirement for the rest of their life.
Militia groups can now strike US military bases in Iraq at will, it seems, as was shown recently. The world seems to be changing.
Heard this many times before on the F-35. So much noises but now? It’s pure silence. Talk is free for the critics
All these analysts talking about the way things should, could or would be.
Well it’s all our tax money being used, so yeah people are going to discuss their opinions as they should be
@@rjallenbach1 I agree with you but where is it written that a weapon should cost a certain amount if it's used for a particular purpose? Weapons do evolve. As they do they're expected to cost more.
@@rjallenbach1 I mean, I get what you're saying, but few here are experts in the field, and I guarantee you not a single person who sees this comment has any knowledge in God knows how many classified projects are currently underway. People can express their opinions all they want, don't get me wrong, but it's pointless in my opinion.
Godbless America 🗽🕊️🇺🇲
If you really think about it, carriers were so effective in WWII because other than planes, they stood fairly unopposed in the waters. Submarine technology was not nearly good enough to sneak past all the escorts, missiles were also non-existent. These days, the major powers have plenty of subs and an abundance of anti-ship missiles.
The US AGM-158C only costs about 4 million per unit according to publicly available data. That means even if 1000 missiles are used to sink a single carrier, it would only cost about 4 billion compared to nearly 14 billion of the USS Gerald R. Ford. This excludes the cost of the aircraft and loss of manpower. As a result, are large carriers really worth it in this day and age?
Cant that be said for any ship? Are they not all just as vulnerable and much more expensive than a missile? Why bother with a Navy at all? Come to think it, that works for tanks and planes too. And yeah, soldiers, aren’t they more expensive than a bullet? I think there aspects to warfare you are not including.
@@TheBooban You technically aren't wrong. Just about everything except for the soldiers will at some point become unnecessary.
You realize that those other ships are much cheaper relatively speaking per unit. They can even be considered expendable. Carriers being sunk is not only a massive tank to money and resources but morale as well. Battleships are the best example of a once-dominant naval technology being obsolete. The German Bismarck and Japanese Yamato are the best and most well-known examples. Tons of money poured in but as warfare tactics during that time solidified, they became obsolete the moment they were completed due to new technologies. It could arguably be said history is repeating itself with the carriers.
Smaller vessels such as frigates have remained prominent for hundreds of years. Their relatively low cost, utility, and flexibility offset their disadvantages. Also, the reason we have not replaced navies is that technology has not allowed us to do so.
MBTs do seem to be less effective according to some studies done by the Chinese. Infantry firepower has gotten to the point where squads can consistently take out tanks. That's why they have been holding off on the deployment of the type 99s and changing to the type 15 and existing type 96.
Airplanes could theoretically eventually be replaced with drones and things like that. Therefore, they would meet obsolescence at some point too.
The only staple part of a military is infantry. They have been and always will be the bread and butter of warfare. The best technologies will eventually be phased out or used up.
TL;DR: In essence, pretty much anything other than the soldiers themselves will at some point become unnecessary. It's only a matter of lack of better current choice.
In an era of high hypersonic missiles, drones , advanced electronic emp devices, biological warfare , a.i., geometrically advancing technology , time building elements , vulnerability of ports , .... yes the carrier and large ships will be obsolete in a major war if not already .
Need more knowledge on Bitcoin trading and binary investment??
Contact Mrs Sandra Bob +1 4 3 7 7 0 3 6 6 9 2
@Fortunatus Nine
Okay genius, when do we start building a fleet of jet-skies?
@@deadrivers2267 perhaps when you get your head out of your azz n think future advantage adaptability .🤔
❤️ from the Philippines 🇵🇭 🇵🇭 🇵🇭
Rolls Royce engines in United Kingdom is also making engines for submarines and heavy aircraft
congratulations 4 2 millions 👏 💙 🙌 ❤
Thats the price you pay for being on cutting/bleeding edge. Its expensive. On the flipside, you're potentially getting advantage over your enemies.
Yeah when you fight weaklings.
Yes, over imaginary, made-up "enemies".
I think investing in huge aircraft carriers in general is a lost cause , developing more and more sofisticated missiles systems and put them on small agile and cheaper ships will make this things useless in my opinion .
It doesn't get cooler than aircraft on carriers.
lmao
Obviously I’m going to be biased as a Brit but I really think the royal navy’s new carriers have got something going for themselves, have the space for 70 ish aircraft in surge conditions and costs 1/3 of a Ford class carrier
but they can't operate AWACS nor air refueling aircraft which is all important and the only type of jet they can launch is the most crippled version of the already not so great F35. if only the UK wouldn't have canceled the catapults and arresting wires because of budget restrictions they would have had a proper aircraft carrier instead of a helicopter carrier.
@@swunt10 we have less capable helicopter awacs but there is space int he current design to refit the ship with catapults and traps, all the space for the equipment is still there below deck, it would of course cost money but if someone decided in 20 years they want an angled deck it won’t take too much effort to convert. Also there’s nothing about the f35b that makes it crippled
@@TheDrummingWarrior "Also there’s nothing about the f35b that makes it crippled" except that's wrong.. the F35B weights more than the other variants, is limited to 7G's instead of 9G's, has a bring back capability of almost nothing, it's also the slowest variant and has less range than the other variants. it also has the lowest take of weight meaning to be able to launch the thing it can neither carry enough fuel nor enough weapons which makes the lack of air to air refueling capability of the british carriers even more depressing. what the UK politicians who over ruled the navy opted for is saving some money on an angled deck with catapults and arresting gear in exchange for having almost no capabilities. yet they still have the costs of operating 2 carriers and lots of very expensive F35 jets. some old freighter converted to carry a number of helicopters with some rockets strapped to the sides would have saved even more money... PS if you think they will ever convert the 2 ships to proper carriers think again. they just build the 2 ships and opted not to install the catapults and arresting wires AND they bough many billions worth of F35Bs. no one will retrofit catapults to these ships, not within the next 30 years where the F35Bs will be used nor after 30 years when retrofitting expensive catapults and arresting gear in a 1 year long retrofit dock exercise to some then quite old ships will make even less sense. no, the QE carriers will be stuck with F35Bs and that's it. the only solution here would be to at least develop, as has been proposed in the US, an air refueling variant of the tilt rotor osprey and ideally also an AWACS variant of the osprey. then at least the F35Bs could launch with a relevant number of weapons on board and then laboriously refuel air to air before going on a mission while a long range AWACS commands the battle space. that wont make the F35Bs any better at dodging rockets or going very far but at least it would give them a chance to even get somewhere while carrying some weapons.
@@swunt10 and just to remind you, the Uk is buying the F35B to replace the harrier and the tornado, it is not our primary fighter it will be a strike aircraft first and foremost
That's why we need to make orbital space stations that launch aircraft into earths orbit.
I feel like I’ve learned nothing from this. Thanks CNBC.
US spending tax payer’s money on Aircraft Carriers while the people doesn’t even deserve basic free health care. Sad!
Can we please stop the Trump impressions? He's banned from Twitter and out of office. At this point you're just killing your own brain cells for a worn out joke.
@@romancultist6089 So what happens to people who can’t afford insurance in US? Will health care on medical expense be affordable to them? What can another Aircraft Carrier do for the people in US? Good governance is thinking of the welfare for the people first and not building another weapon to show dominance around the world which the US citizens do not benefit. In my country we put the people first. School and medical fees are subsidised to ensure all generations and working class can afford it. That’s what I call good governance in a first world country.
@@aloysiustan1765 good governance is defending the thing you govern. This is a dangerous world full of stupid people. Carriers provide force projection. If you don’t know what that means, then you need not participate in the conversation any longer. As far as the people? The citizens of the US don’t need to be “taken care of”. Americans figure it out. Health care reform and military dominance are not mutually exclusive. If you were an American you’d realize that.
@@VoteForBukele I agree! Defending what you govern is crucial. But having force of projection to take over the world? There are 11 Aircraft Carriers owned by the US, which is 5 times more than any other countries. My military experience tells me that they want to dominate the whole world and therefore there won’t be peace. It’s funny how the world is only dangerous place when the US intervenes other country’s politics for political gains. Al-Qaeda & ISIS was created by none other than the US. Financing them and arming them to fight their common enemies. Now they turn their back on the rest of the world making it a dangerous place for us. Sure maybe US want to help stop dictatorship but you dont see another country come and intervene US affairs when there’s one. Sure I may not be an American but I’m sure you alone don’t speak for the rest of the American’s living conditions in the US.
@@aloysiustan1765 You finally said something relevant. You’re not American, therefore your opinion is invalid. End of story. But thank you for your concern. We’ll be fine. Worry about yourself.
$12 to 18 Billion per pop vs $1 million per missile. Not counting the aircraft and personnel on board. Not at all good odds.
Ever heard of a carrier group?
USA builds weapons: They are for peace
China builds same weaopon: Oh no that's a threat lol
USA builds missiles in Turkey: They are for peace
Soviet Union builds missiles in Cuba: oh no that's a threat
Save for the fact that China IS an actual threat. If any government deserves the title of "Modern Day Nazis" it's the CCP. They are almost using every page in Hitler's playbook.
America bad
@@jb76489 Whatever.
We need those carriers for defensive and offensive operations
Simply put. Yes carriers will stay relevant
You mean they will still exist but they won't be relevant, politicians and private industry are just keeping it alive for their special interests
@@sdprz7893 no no, I mean they'll still be relevant. Maybe not super carriers but the capabilitys they provide cant be matched. The US Navy doctrine allows the escort ships I.E. cruisers and destroyers to focus on air defense while the carriers and focus on strike capabilities with their aircraft. Simply put carriers are a force multiplier that cant be matched even by ballistic anti ship missles
If America didn't spend so much money trying to defend it's Empire they would probably have high speed rail to all major cities in America. What a waste of time and money...
this is why we choose to not have universal healthcare, affordable education, reliable power grids, bridges, etc... etc
Universal health care XD
If it wasn't for a strong military the Republican party wouldn't have any money to re-elect themselves with / sarcasm
@@osamabendolphin765 I can guarantee you cant afford the healthcare you have now if you even have healthcare
So much worthless spending. America focuses more on foreign citizens than their own. We shouldn’t be sending billions in foreign aid and even more on keeping a huge military to police the world against “dictators”.
You want health care? Pay it yourself. Don't expect me to subsidize every fatty, alcoholic, or druggie that can't pay for the damage they did to their body.
Good documentary, I enjoyed it!
The carrier looks like a perfect target for a nuclear warhead, a lot of high value equipment concentrated in a very small area. It is hard to find a better target.
Sure, but using nuclear weapons crosses a line and escalates any potential conflict to a level that China (the obvious other party in this scenario) may not want to risk.
Yes the carriers ensure stability in regional crisis. American freedom and democracy would be less safe without these carriers.
I guess aircraft carrier has a similar evolutionary path as the dinosaur. lol
they die with a Bang
Nice video.
Consider a chess game between two people, one has to lose every piece before they lose the game, and the other can lose by checkmate. The problem with the aircraft carrier strategy is that they're too vital, it relies upon the carriers being untouchable which may well be the case in asymmetric warfare but against another large industrialized nation the cost to benefit ratio is just too good. How many anti-ship missiles can two billion dollars buy? How many missiles can a carrier group defend against? I'm sure it's a lot but even damaging a carrier is a major strategic victory, if it's listing it can't launch aircraft so it has to return to an allied port that has dry docks big enough for a carrier to be repaired and that could be hundreds of miles away. So now does the entire carrier group escort the carrier to safety which takes their presence out of the theater or do you send it back, this incredibly vital ship, with a reduced escort? I think the future is in smaller more expendable ships.
To force Iran not to make a nuclear bomb is better than spending $ $ on making new carriers, China CCP & Russia will take a very long time to match, China CCP are rust leaking buckets, they can't fight Americans for years in navy.
2:53 peter thiel looks skinnier now
Depends on whether a country wants to build defensive capabilities or offensive. You'll need at least an order of magnitude more investment in offensive assets to beat the other side's defenses.
If you want offense capabilities, you need to invest in aircraft carriers.
At 1:00 you ask if aircraft carriers are worth the cost. Yes, if they weren't then why are more allied and adversarial countries building them or buying them. It's not just the western navies, but also Asian and some Middle Eastern countries that are building up their carrier numbers.
It's logical if you have a vast coastline.
No one can afford a full scale war. There is little to gain from it and much to loose. Small local skirmishes yes. Some stealth operations surely. One does not need 12 carrier groups for that.
A lot of armchair Generals... Er, Admirals in the comment section. A lot of the criticisms of carriers may be valid. However, the US uses the ever-loving crap out of the 10 active super carriers they have, exemplified recently by the Biden administration sending two of them over to Chinas backyard.
Deployments of the Nimitz carriers have pushed the ships to the limits of the lifetime power production design of their nuclear reactors. If the us navy wants to move away from super carriers fine... stop deploying the ones we have so much. Probably not going to happen any time soon.
Carriers have the primary function of being the US asset that the chief executive can use to affect international relations. Which is why they are deployed so frequently. They reassure allies and have defused more than one crisis. To give them up is to give up a globalist security policy and move towards isolation. That’s how such a move would be perceived in the rest of the world. The America class simply cannot carry the flag the way the Nimitz and Ford class carriers do.
This makes much sense. The video really does not address the question it specifically raises about vulnerability to long range missiles. I am aware of the supposed tactical defence of the high-frequency ballistic defences, but that was not really probed. It is inescapable that such massive assets cannot manoeuvre fast, to “dodge”. The top brass MUST know this. So I wonder if the true “defence” is the enemy’s fear of what America might do, if you ever dared destroy so high profile & precious an asset, with a relatively cheap missile. Am guessing that no foreign power wants to be the first to find out the answer to that particular puzzler! 🤔
@@galactyx1 It's not like there aren't missile defense systems in place and not just on ships on the outer edge of a Strike Group. In order to actually get through that defense screen they would have to launch an number of missiles such as they wouldn't be cost effective to sink just one ship.
@@Zoten001 OK, but in my mind’s eye, such a remote, long-range missile’s attack vector would be primarily ‘vertical’, coming down from high altitude in the airspace “above” the Aircraft Carrier, rather than through the co-ordinates “around” it. At least, it would if I was specifying the missile design!
@@galactyx1 That's what the AEGIS system is for.
@@galactyx1 while ballistic and cruise missiles are a potentially threat to carriers, the us navy has a number of ways of countering them. one is the surface fleet that protects the ship, another is its air wing, and another is how, when and where carriers are deployed. There are also other factors in play that play well to carriers defending against that kind of threat. That’s not to say they’re not a problem, but it is one that can be managed a number of ways.
I think the bigger threat is likely the risk of submarine attacks. These are, in many cases, harder to defend against and war games have demonstrated that these attacks can succeed.
Ultimately, however, neither threat changes the fact that for the time being the US uses its larger carriers primarily to influence and support foreign policy. If a major war with a peer power breaks out, I suspect that their use would quickly change, but when such a conflict will occurs no one can say. -It may be decades away it maybe within a few years. Whatever the case, Until carriers cease to be of the utility they are now, the US will likely maintain its fleet of around 10 active super carriers to keep the status quo
10 billion $ Carrier. 15 million $ torpedoes. 35 million $ nuclear tipped Sunburn missiles. What future?
Very interesting and worthwhile video. Carriers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to new 21st century weaponry.
Another 'arm chair admiral' speaks.
Serve or shut up
@@johnfosteriii5792 You are very naive and ignorant of technology if you can't see carrier's increasing vulnerability. I'm too busy to waste further time on ignoramuses. Good luck!
@@robertschlesinger1342 another arm chair admiral
I served 21 years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club. How many years did you serve Mr know-it-all?
@@johnfosteriii5792 I went through some ROTC with a former Commander-in-Chief and later generals, but during the Vietnam War era the government wanted me to finish my graduate studies in a technical field vital to national security. After graduate school and law school, I prepared and prosecuted some patent applications also vital to national security, including some on aviation, boat design, and remote means of passively eavesdropping. This is all easily verifiable online, and by the way, my ROTC days go back to the mid-1960s when I was a classmate of Donald Trump, see his graduating yearbook, The Shrapnel 1964, available online through the classmates website. DT and I were friends, although he was several years ahead of me. Countermeasures are relatively easy. It's a matter of thermodynamics. Sorry if I seemed impolite. Thank you for your service.
@@johnfosteriii5792 You tell 'em, John! They said the same thing about battleships 70 years ago, and we now know battleships are better defended than ever.
I love the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class. I think four of these ships modified for the US Navy would be a good investment. I think they would be better than the America class ships mainly because of that bigger flight deck. The Americas are good for their specialty, supporting the Marines. The QEs could better fill a light carrier niche, whether they be operated as F35B carriers or maybe be modified with arresting gear as STOBAR carriers or with EM catapults. Those ideas failed within the UK mission parameters and budget, but the QEs form that baseline to speed up the design of a new CVL.
the QE or the Trieste class with the F-35B would be fine. the answers are there, 1) the osprey can become a tanker for the F35, the tilt rotor can operate from this vessel type. 2) the AEW/ASAC role could also be performed by the v22 ( elbit aesa radar canoe fairing would work on the type if modified to wind tunnel modeling). so the range of the F35b is increased through air to air refuelling and aew is enabled adding to flexibility of missions. Marines have operated from the type so pilots know the vessel class. there is no doubt the ships could add to the ability of the US forces.
Carriers: I'm the best around
Chinese and Russian missiles: *No*
When they tried to sink the aircraft carrier USS America, they could not do it. So they had to scuttle the ship in a weapons testing like most of the WW2 carriers that were lost. These boys did not talk about that. These ships DIE HARD
The argument of "big ships, easy targets" is not always true. Aircraft carriers are huge but have a vast array of defense systems that will make any attempt to destroy it next to impossible. They're also not made for ship-to-ship combat and therefore are do not operate from naval frontlines. Less big carriers are way better than more smaller carriers.
Another fact
defending against a hypersonic missile won't be so easy as you would like to portray
@@briant5685 Big or small, the chances are the same in this case, but the big carrier will have a better chance of protecting itself because of more powerful defense systems on board. You'll be surprised what the US military has in terms of technology.
@@AA-os2bf Not against a modern quiet submarine which already happened twice in training. I also doubt a carrier can intercept a group of hypersonic missiles traveling at more than 2-3 machs. If I were you I wouldn't overestimate defensive capabilities.
@@ntf5211 The submarine thing happened during trials and got corrected as far as I know. Either way, bigger carriers still have more protective capability than smaller ones.
On one hand, WW2 made it clear that single large ships are often very costly in resources and easy targets. On the other hand, light carriers without much state of the art defence can be sitting ducks. I personally think that multiple lighter platforms supported by advanced cruisers is the best bet.
WW2 also made it clear that the fleet carrier was the single most important asset on the sea.
What are you confused about the difference between battle ship and carriers?
@@ChrisGilliamOffGrid yeah and the civil war taught us that ironclads were the future. Stuff change
@@ChrisGilliamOffGrid yes before the missile era which arguably renders these carriers obselete
@@ntf5211 That remains to be seen.
These guys just don't know much about modern aircraft carriers or the aircraft that fly from them. Don't waste your time watching this!
Deadass I'm watching this muted, I just wanted to see clips of ships and jets 😂😂
they should make assault kayaks instead...
Nothing makes me more patriotic than fighter jets and aircraft carriers
Its a waste of money
@@lukealadeen7836 Not according to China now
@@Student0Toucher China is notorious for wasting money. Ever heard of the Chinese ghost cities?
@@lukealadeen7836 Those can be very useful in a nuclear war or a war in general lol so the main city residents can leave to other cities
@@lukealadeen7836 lol
People in this comment section don’t understand that a carrier is part of a strike group MILES in diameter. “One missile can sink an entire carrier.” That doesn’t make any sense. In what logic is a single missile going to be able to penetrate a protective barrier that has 20+ ships and 10 miles thick?
i mean it would be more expensive to start a new air craft carrier from scratch tho
This is what's known as a....sunk cost :-)
The Future of the Aircraft Carrier
...
the Spacecraft Carrier.
We need HeliCarriers.
I'd love to see those
It’s not very practical and would easily get shot done by a SAM
They will need to invent deflector shield first before build ones.
No you dont
Very recently a US "amphibious" assault carrier demonstrated its ability to launch 24 F-35Bs. That platform all of a sudden became a major offensive center for the US Navy.
if people just mind their own business in their own country. these will all goes to museum.
That's a dangerous policy. For even if one does not just mind their own business, but the rest do, you will be at the mercy of the one who doesn't just mind their business.
And on the global scale of things, the different countries business overlaps. Take for instance Russia. They provide most of Europe with natural gas. Those countries have a keen interest in what happens in Russia as it might effect their countries if the gas is cut off or even just cut back. So minding their own business means they have to mind yours as well.
Carrier groups will need to be equipped with anti-missile defences that protect it against super/hypersonic missiles. If they don't they will go the way of the battleship. A big part of Russia/China strategy is to deny carrier forces access, in other words prevent them from getting close enough to do damage. Another idea might be to build a missile carrier. Build a ship the size of an aircraft carrier that is loaded with vertical launcing tubes for (long distance) missiles. Imagine when you see your radar screen light up with a 1000 super/hypersonic missiles in a matter of minutes....
People here seem to forget that a Carrier NEVER, I SAY NEVER sails without it's Strike Group
Fire off enough anti ship missiles and you will get lucky.
Yep a lot of dummies in these comments
The Stike group can't shoot down the incoming unpredicteble maneuvering hypersonic missles
They can with the new Helios lazer system for medium and close defense
@AL HASSANE BARRY no but some subsonic missiles can change their trajectory making them a nightmare to intercept
The sheer flexibility of Carriers is unmatched
Change the aircraft compliment and you can massively change it's combat performance.
The power projection is unmatched
Vulnerable? Sure just like any other Warship.
If they are so Vulnerable why are so many countries building them now?
maybe we should all live on aircraft carriers
Okay...so there are cost overruns and engineering issues. No machine of this size and complexity is ever perfect at first.
Tell us something that we don't know.
But you'd have to be completely devoid of any historical knowledge to ask the necessity of aircraft carriers.
Fun Fact: A Aircraft Carrier can level an entire city.
Fun Fact: A nuclear missile can vaporize an aircraft carrier.
@charles harper a nuclear missiles can level multiple cities
@@Fish-ey9lt
At a fraction of the cost of an aircraft carrier.
Fun fact: aircraft carriers ARE entire cities. They have their own ZIP codes. Really.
fun fact: a submarine (not even the most modern ones) can sink a 12B$ super carrier (basically "happened" 2 times in exercise, once with a Sweedish and once with a French submarine)
I am not a small military budget type, but I feel we could use older decommissioned carriers as housing for the homeless. Hell, in private hands, they’d make great Airbnbs as well.
Those people don't know what they are talking about, but the navy brass knows what they need and is building it or applying for changes to make their service more efficient and right now the service is using less personnel on their ships to do the same job and more and saving the service money.
I was stationed on Carriers for 5 years during the Cold War 80s.....Big Crews are there for redundancy.....Dead men can't fight...or put out fires etc...
The second type of carrier is also known as a "Gator freighter"!🤣👍
The idea that carriers will be obsolete in the near future is crazy. No country including the US has ICBM's that can reliably hit a carrier cruising at 34mph over 500 miles away. It requires a long and complex blockchain of commands from multiple satellites, and thats ignoring the fact the US has been working on anti-satellite weapons since Star Wars, and successfully destroyed a satellite in 2002. Considering how fast tech is evolving I'm sure its much more impressive than it was almost 20 years ago. Oh and there in no enemy submarine that will be able to sneak through a carriers defense to hit it with the 5-6 torpedo's that would be required to sink a modern aircraft carrier.
Back before COVID when we could fly on aircraft carriers😫
In WW2 the US was churning out carriers to overwhelm the Japanese. They could lose them and the war machine still kept trucking. Today, to lose a carrier would be a heavy blow. It's not a good idea to have any sort of hardware in your military without which you would be done.
america had some 100+ carriers by the end of the war
US Navy should never away from high technology especially carriers we need them especially now and for the future to deal with dangerous countries like Russia and China
Well mate, id say..USA is more dangerous here..
Russia and China really aren't as dangerous as they or even we think they are. From a military standpoint they don't really have a chance, sure they have nukes but so do we.
@@kentershackle1329 really well if wasn't for the US being so dangerous there will no EU so be grateful the US is more dangerous mate lol
Interesting and Informative !!
if Boeing makes fighter planes and satellites for USA, it's business and progress, if Chinese companies make commercial and military products, it's a problem. Double standard
Welcome to an apartheid world order.
My dad was on a carrier in Midway, WW II. USS Vincennes, part of the Doolittle Raid⚓
I think the US should invest in autonomous ships that can be built in large scales for a low prices and fitted for all kinds of tasks. That way we spare money and risk less lives of navy personal.
Gundam when?
Lmfao