Are they expensive? Yes. Are they floating targets with huge bullseyes on them? Yes.... Are they the most effective means of power projection over nearly 80% of the planet? YES!

@aluisious

9 ай бұрын

No, they're not that effective. You could load a tanker with 1000 cruise missiles and it would still cost

@n00bKen

9 ай бұрын

As long as they are used properly, like the modern tanks, they will provide exceptional strategic value. I mean, who doesn't want dozens of aircraft to be launched from sea and threaten the airspace of an enemy nation?

@mikeryan7468

9 ай бұрын

They are an antiquated waste of fucking money needed elsewhere.

@ferai147

9 ай бұрын

@@aluisious Except said tanker would be priority #1 for every navy on the planet and would get sunk by a sub before it ever got anywhere near a carrier to unload it's missiles. Not to mention even a tanker wouldn't be big enough to support that many missiles and their launchers, probably not even half that many.

@MLaak86

9 ай бұрын

@@aluisious missiles are not on par with what aircraft give you

This question has been around for decades. The US Navy recently did a review of different ways they could distribute forces, including more small carriers, more destroyers, more subs, etc. Their analysis came back to carrier battle groups, with fewer large carriers. That was the most bang for the buck, easiest to defend, and gave sufficient firepower to make a difference.

@Inkling777

9 ай бұрын

A good point. For a parallel, imagine that you need to go into a rough neighborhood on a Friday night. Would you rather be accompanied by heavily armed 220-pound Navy Seal or several 140-pound music teachers with flutes? If you're going into danger, the better armed you are, the safer you are. Even the intimidation value of that Seal is valuable.

@Wild_Danimal

9 ай бұрын

@@Inkling777wtf? Lol

@frankgrabasse4642

9 ай бұрын

They found that a overpriced carrier was the way to go, as they have and will have more, overpriced carriers...

@LB-yg2br

9 ай бұрын

@@Inkling777is “flute” code for a Glock?

@joelrodriguez9661

9 ай бұрын

​@frankgrabasse4642 yes carriers are expensive. However these ships have services lives of 50 years or more. They also can be upgraded with new sensors and other systems when they enter their dock yard maintenance periods. They also have the ability to do much more than simply drop warheads on foreheads. They can be invaluable in relief operations. They never operate alone. So they have an integrated defense network around them of cruisers, Destroyers, submarines and aircraft. The US and several other navies now have the ability to augment their fleets with "lightning carriers". Smaller vessels like the US LHA's which can be used to carry and deploy F-35B's.

I served on 3 carriers. They are 4 acres of flight deck and up to 5'000 people with the air-wing on board. The issue is you get limited to certain deep water ports with the logistics capable of servicing a ship of that size. In a deployment we would get maybe 4-5 ports, but the smaller ships would usually get 1 or 2 more. The smaller carriers give us more options.

@badluck5647

9 ай бұрын

I assume that is why they are nuclear powered, while the smaller ships aren't.

@jackhemsworth7515

9 ай бұрын

More options, less of a target, and honestly, about the same level of lethality. Means the gerald ford can hang back. Or function as a forwards operating base

@theofficialken1755

9 ай бұрын

@@badluck5647 yes, the fuel we carry is for more planes and not ship consumption. We take on JP-5 at sea anyway, so the smaller carriers can still operate in blue water. The other thing is it's way less men and equipment clustered in one hull, so losing one wouldn't be as catastrophic to our combat power.

@foracal5608

9 ай бұрын

Thank you for serving

@wyldhowl2821

9 ай бұрын

No doubt that not every flashpoint would need a huge Ford-sized ship to go show the flag, so the US could alter plans to have maybe just 4 or 6 of those as flagships, and then have more of the smaller (cheaper) kind to run around dealing with less potent foes. Considering the next 4 top navies, they could not equal the US carrier fleet even if all of their carriers were counted together (and a couple of those would be allies in any war where the other two would be enemies). So it does seem like the US carrier fleet has been absurdly over-sized for a very long time; I can see the US deciding to make fewer huge carriers in favour of more smaller sized ones ("small" being merely 65000 tons or something, LOL). But much depends on how the USA's adversaries perceive American intentions and capabilities, as the adversaries are the ones trying to at least counter it. Leaders change, technology changes, strategies change. 10 years from now, the global food supply & water could be so fucked that every country will be spending resources only on trying to survive, not build or maintain their overseas power projection.

Battleships weren't useless by any means, as demonstrated by the American Iowa class. They were excellent for shore bombardment and anti-aircraft fire. All four Iowas participated in WWII and Korea, New Jersey was in Vietnam, all 4 were modernized and reactivated in the 80's, and Missouri and Wisconsin participated in Desert Storm. You don't have an almost 50 year career by being "useless".

@badluck5647

9 ай бұрын

Useless in a ship vs ship role. Their role has changed.

@DefinitelyNotEmma

9 ай бұрын

SSGN > BBs

@Sole-tx9cx

9 ай бұрын

@@badluck5647I disagree. That has harpoon missiles, tomahawk missiles, and those 16inch guns can do a lot of damage. I am not sure how much damage an anti-ship missile can do to a battleship.

@georgewright3949

9 ай бұрын

Battleships converted into Monitors . A shore bombardment ship is no longer a battleship

@badluck5647

9 ай бұрын

@@Sole-tx9cx The battleship wouldn't even get in range of another ship before a fighter jet from a carrier shows up.

You can't think of an aircraft carrier as a single entity. At least with the US Navy never operates carriers singly.

@badluck5647

9 ай бұрын

"Carrier groups"

@randytessman6750

9 ай бұрын

nobody does

@kevinfoster1138

9 ай бұрын

Are you talking about the destroyers and other ships that go before the carriers?

@Venezolano410

9 ай бұрын

Aircraft carriers have never been single entities. They have always had escort ships to protect them since WWII.

@DefinitelyNotEmma

9 ай бұрын

You could still argue that the Strike Group would be 90% as effective even without the carrier. In fact, you could build a strike group around an "arsenal ship", a vessel with hundreds of VLS tubes. But we'll have to wait and see. Still, the aircraft carrier had it's showtime, like the battleship or dreadnought. Smaller carriers in mobile and smaller strike groups could be the future, perhaps rendering super carriers obsolete.

Japanese carriers didn't take 25 years to manufacture like the video says. Their first aircraft carrier, the Hōshō, was laid down in 1920 and completed in 1922. Most of their carriers took under 2 years to be built and another year to be fitted out before being put into service.

@HikuroMishiro

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, I don't know what the heck Simon was on about there. Even the Yamato the largest battleship by tonnage ever constructed was laid down and launched in less than three years.

@blazewardog

9 ай бұрын

It's also a terrible comparison when an Essex-class had one built in 14 months which is half a year quicker than that escort carrier quote time. Escort carriers were usually a bit quicker, but were built as there weren't enough large slipways for more Essex classes.

@tygrenvoltaris4782

9 ай бұрын

remove americas resources and have it even with japan then@@blazewardog

@PetrSojnek

9 ай бұрын

Maybe it was supposed to be 25 months instead of 25 years? :) Preverbial decimal point slip :)

@Ben1159a

9 ай бұрын

That 25 year construction time claim was way off the mark.

I think the big come back in lightning carriers is the fact that there is now a supersonic jet that can launch from them. Once jets got too big to launch from escort carriers the need for larger carriers was focused on more heavily. Once helicopters began to take more roles helicopter assault ships started being built. Now that the 35 is 'ready' the lightning carriers are a great option.

@Sole-tx9cx

9 ай бұрын

However, modern aircraft carriers carry far more jets with more armament

@andrewday3206

9 ай бұрын

@@Sole-tx9cx Well that’s the point. The Queen Elizabeth Class carrier can be built for 1/4 - 1/6 the cost. Having 5 QEC may just be more effective than 1 Ford Class

@Sole-tx9cx

9 ай бұрын

@@andrewday3206 no way. The Ford class is larger and carries more aircraft and more jet fuel. Moreover, because the Ford is larger and has no ramp, the aircraft can carry more armaments too. The Ford is much faster and needs far less refueling too.

@andrewday3206

9 ай бұрын

@@Sole-tx9cx I understand all that but one Ford vs 6 QEC well…

@baconsnake6463

9 ай бұрын

@@Sole-tx9cxIt’d be easier to cover a larger AOR with 5 escort carriers than with 1 supercarrier

So basically Carriers are not obsolete; they're just building smaller ones and are calling them Sea Control Ships... But as long as they carry aircraft, to me they will be aircraft carriers.

@bookmark2232

9 ай бұрын

What they are calling sea control ships are really amphibious assault ships that carry and deploy marines. They have existed for over 40 years...

@hrhagadorn

9 ай бұрын

Funny thing about this is Japan is not allowed constitutional to have carriers. So their new Izumo class are destroyers.

@erikrick

9 ай бұрын

​@@hrhagadorn"aircraft capable destroyers" 😁

@daexion

9 ай бұрын

​@@erikrick The Izumo class destroyer is the equivalent of an LHA in the USN which are helo carriers.

USS Tripoli (LHA-7) is an amphibious assault ship and LHA stands for Landings Helicopter Assault.

@to520fan

9 ай бұрын

Beat me to it… or Largest Hotel Afloat…

@lokilyesmith

9 ай бұрын

Seriously that's a major mistake to be made in a video like this. That 'L' has been around for like sixty years.

@adamranger6447

9 ай бұрын

Threw me off when he said it…Lightning carriers are exactly that…they are vessels which can carrier Lightnings into the fight…the idea of helicopter carriers/VTOL carriers is very well established. What’s happening here is a shift in doctrine.

@Silverhornet81

9 ай бұрын

I came here to comment on the LHA as well.. I did a double take when he said it.

@cruisinguy6024

9 ай бұрын

These videos have been full of major errors or omissions lately. It’s like they’re not even spending ten seconds on Wikipedia before pumping their trash out. I was stunned to see not a single mention of amphibious groups, well decks, or LHDs and wanted to scream every time he used the L has lightning carrier

Japanese carrier Sōryū Laid down -20 November 1934 Launched - 23 December 1935 Commissioned - 29 December 1937 How do you get 21 years out of that ?

This one feels more like SImon's reading a Reddit post than a Megaprojects Script. The writer definitely had a bit of a wild ride with this one

@cruisinguy6024

9 ай бұрын

I think quality control has gone way down since they’ve started pumping out so many videos. They no longer care about accuracy or content - they just want to pump out as many videos they can even if the information is trash.

@milkdrinker7

8 ай бұрын

​@@cruisinguy6024capitalism does it again, good show.

In the same way that the Lexington class aircraft carriers initially carried 8in guns because no one was quite sure about an aircraft carriers role in the battle line, and thought it might need to defend itself against surface warships. I believe that the aircraft carrier's role will simply change and evolve as it has been doing since the first observation baloon barges.

@jimb9063

9 ай бұрын

Have you seen the other plans for the conversion of the Lexingtons? A couple are pretty funny, more Battle Cruiser with a bit of deck than anything. More so than when HMS Furious had an 18 inch gun and half a flight deck! Bit of a unique period though due to Treaty restraints. Kaga, Akagi, and the Lex's were kind of one off deals. You could argue that the Battle Cruiser evolved into the late 1930's/40's Fleet Carrier in that they're fast, pack a punch, but you don't want them in the Line of Battle (Taffy 3 aside!). No reason to think they won't evolve again as you say. Maybe get smaller and more numerous to service the much smaller drones available. It's a bit like the Tank situation. What they offer is very useful, and can't currently be done by anything else. As long as they are used correctly, in conjunction with Infantry/Artillery/Air Support, and Submarines/Destroyers/Satellites respectively, there is nothing currently better to use.

@williamcostigan91

9 ай бұрын

@@jimb9063 The tank comparison is apt I've seen so many articles decrying the "age of the tank is over" citing the many lost and knocked out tanks in Ukraine. What those articles ignore is how complex combined arms warfare is. A tank without support is just a steel coffin and a carrier without escorts is just a target, after all not every carrier can have ships like Johnston and the Sammy B protecting it.

@jimb9063

9 ай бұрын

@@williamcostigan91 Yes exactly. I think the Tank was first written off at the end of or just after WW1, and quite a few times since. Turns out a biggish protected moveable cannon is still useful after all, if you look after it properly. Got to love Destroyers right? I'd say that if the decent age of sail officers were around in the 20th C, they wouldn't want to go near the big boring sedate beasts in any navy. Always a slim chance of a boarding action in a Destroyer...

@williamcostigan91

9 ай бұрын

@@jimb9063 Some Spanish or Royal Navy time displaced sailers looking at a carrier in disappointment like "but where's the ram bow and boarding hooks?"

@jimb9063

9 ай бұрын

@@williamcostigan91 Heh yeah. Imagine them listening to a lecture- "..and at Coral Sea, ships engaged each other without seeing each other for the first time..." And they're saying it like it's a good thing?!!!

Let's not neglect to remember that square cube law favors larger carriers too, if I recall correctly. Bigger volume means you can more carry larger amounts of things inside with a slower increase of infrastructure, and ships move more efficiently when they're larger too.

@aldrinmilespartosa1578

4 ай бұрын

Agree 😊

Absolute, masterpiece of an opening Simon. We romanticize the hardware of war. Like the chariot was defeated by the trench, the knight by the longbow, and the cavalry charge by the machine gun; the more dominant the tool the more focused your enemy in on making it obsolete.

@falleithani5411

8 ай бұрын

..and the more difficult it is to do so. Trenches are slow to build and hazardous to farmland, so chariots dominated wide varieties of terrain until the horses were bred large enough to ride. A lot of people forget that chariots existed because it was an era where horses were still too small to carry a full-grown human on their back. Chariots didn't fall out of use because countermeasures were developed, they became obsolete because horses themselves improved, until they no longer needed the help of wheels to ferry warriors around a battlefield. The longbow didn't defeat plate armour, it only accelerated advancement and refinement in armour technology. Arrow-proof armour wasn't perfect, but it was good enough to do the job, and well-made plate armour remained the most effective way to survive a battle for nearly four centuries _after_ the longbow became a dominant weapon of war. It was the knight's lack of _armament,_ not armour, that ultimately led to its obsolescence. As the age of steam loomed, militaries quickly realized that 100 extra guns, even in the hands of untrained draftees, were a devastating force no one man could match, for the same price as a good suit of plate. And a lord would be safer in a mansion, far behind that wall of fire and death, than he would in any armour. And so gradually, as those lessons set in, the wealthy stopped directly participating in combat, instead sponsoring vast expansions to conscription among the lower classes, as war entered its bloodiest era. The machine gun only reliably neutralized cavalry charges for one half of one war, and it only did so with the help of barbed wire. Until commanders finally accepted that it was time to replace horses with motorized armour. Then the iron cavalry charge became a dominant strategy for the rest of that same war. It was later refined and polished into Blitzkrieg tactics, which was then refined and polished into modern combined arms warfare. it was a gradual evolution, just as every effective tool of war gradually evolves. I know it's hard to be just as skeptical of cynicism as one is of miracles, but it's important to do so. Any time you see someone tearing down some 'popular' thing and claiming it's not as good a people think, bear in mind that there is a lot of fame and glory in doing so, and it's far easier to do so with flowery fictions than fact. I find habeas corpus to be a very helpful tool in assessing such claims. Falling too deep into these cynical rabbit holes is how people become anti-vaccination.

@goodwill559

3 ай бұрын

​@@falleithani5411very good collection of counterpoints

Aircraft carriers not only control the seas, they control airspace and provide a military presence that cannot be ignored. That can be anywhere in the world. The light aircraft carriers control of the seas may be redundant, but their big brothers are not redundant in their role. They stand alone as a Carrier Task Group or Force.

Name a better way to project power with air power? Are there weaknesses? sure, but redundant, hardly

@cleverusername9369

9 ай бұрын

Intercontinental ballistic missiles?

@jamiebrooks3864

9 ай бұрын

Let's hope Russia doesn't prove you wrong for the 5000+ on board if this war expands

@HailAzathoth

9 ай бұрын

@@jamiebrooks3864 lmao with how russia weapons are now proven to perform there is not chance in hell of them touching a CV

@HailAzathoth

9 ай бұрын

@@cleverusername9369 youre joking right?

@randytessman6750

9 ай бұрын

Approach Asia when China decides its time and any carrier is facing actual thousands of missiles and decoys ....... they will make movies about the destruction for a century

The aircraft carrier has continued to evolve, informed by the requirements specific to US geopolitics and related military technologies. They are multi-domain vessels, not just for "sea control" but also for alliance power projection, humanitarian aid and until recently, maintaining a robust defense industrial base (including maintenance, R&D and efficient construction). The future of carriers will likely include increasing aspects of automation (to reduce costly manpower requirements), the addition of directed energy weapons (powered by the excess energy of its nuclear propulsion) and air wing augmentation by various drones (for ISR, refueling, gun trucks for LRASMs & MUMT models for the F-35C). If carriers were "redundant", then I doubt China, India, France and Russia would waste their time and resources planning to build new vessels and/or replacements. That's not to say that recent developments in missile technology and sensor fusion haven't posed increasingly lethal threats to the carrier, and so combat doctrine will also need to evolve to defeat a A2/AD stratagem.

@stevechance150

9 ай бұрын

I find it odd that Simon didn't discuss the new hypersonic missiles.

@jedimasterdraco6950

9 ай бұрын

@@stevechance150 Hypersonics are an overblown threat in many regards. While they have speed, their maneuverability is limited and because of their speeds, their targeting has to be exact in order to not miss. And when it comes down to it, even a Gerald Ford-class carrier is a comparatively small target that is capable of pretty astonishing agility. It wouldn't take much for a carrier going at flank speed (which is very possible given that thanks to nuclear power they're totally unconcerned about conserving fuel) to dodge a hypersonic missile. Plus as we've seen in Ukraine, it's still entirely possible to incept and shoot down a hypersonic. Part of the reason the US military hasn't really worked in developing them is that low-observability was deemed to be more effective/had fewer drawbacks.

@jimb9063

9 ай бұрын

Yes, pretty much my view. Have to take on board my personal bias, I love naval aviation, but there is currently nothing else that can do the job that it does. Already seen a more than 50% reduction in crew numbers between the Nimitz and Ford class if I remember rightly?

@Fanatical_Empathy

8 ай бұрын

Missile speed has been the same for a while, our material science holds back greater speed. Our current anti missile systems can hit other supersonic missiles that are smaller such as kinsle. Reality is the way forward would be to build dummy missiles that would be insanely cheap to make yet if they don't get shot down then the opposing side would risk getting hit by a non dummy missile. Planners will find ways to overwhelm defenses, then a better shield will be produced, song as old as time.

@Fanatical_Empathy

8 ай бұрын

Also deep sea submersible designed to "look" like marine life on sonar could lay dormant off coast for months at a time, once hostility breaks out these deep sea drones would come up from the bottom and simply depth charge everything from like 500 feet down causing a bubble to rise up and break the keels of ships. Lots of ways to design things if your creative!

4:05. Good quote. Cold wars are bulking season, not cutting season

The fact many think there are reasons aircraft carries will become obsolete makes me think it won't go exactly that way. We've been really bad at these predictions. It is always something else, something nearly completely unconsidered before hand.

@Pincuishin

9 ай бұрын

It won't but most nations including the us would better use smaller carriers. Then again the us has like 20 smaller 'carriers' to add to our 11 super carriers.

@rektom1674

9 ай бұрын

It's also true that nothing last forever eventually it's gonna be replaced or retired thanks to something else, i put my bet on autonomous drone fleets.

@zogar8526

9 ай бұрын

@Pincuishin exactly. Even if something changes to make them easier targets, the solution is just to go smaller, not to scrap them. If the enemy hits our one Gerald Ford with a land based cruise missile or anything else, and takes it out, that is a huge loss. But if instead we built like 5 smaller carries instead of that one, any one loss isn't such a big deal. All while we still have the ability to project power and send aircraft to places they normally couldn't go.

@zogar8526

9 ай бұрын

@rektom1674 that is also very true. However, I don't think the idea of a carrier will ever go obsolete entirely. It is too useful of a platform. The ability to have aircraft where you normally couldn't, and strike out further than any normal weapons could is just too powerful to ever become completely useless. That said, I don't think they will stay the way we currently use them. As you said, drones are likely to become bigger parts of our militaries. I can see smaller carriers that are harder targets carrying not fighter jets or bombers, but fleets of drones. Possibly even kamikaze drones not meant to come back.

@patrickweaver1105

9 ай бұрын

Smaller equals less capable. You can't even operate most naval aircraft off smaller carriers and those you can are less capable. A WWII carrier weighed 30.000 tons and carried up to 90 aircraft. The Charles de Gaulle weighs 42.500 tons and can carry 40 conventional aircraft. An America class LHA weighs 45,000 tons and can carry 20 VSTOL aircraft. The Queen Elizabeth weighs 65000 tons and can carry 40 VSTOL aircraft and helicopters. A Nimitz class carrier weighs 94,000 tons and carries up to 90 conventional aircraft of various types and helicopters. Are you getting a feel for the scale necessary to have an effective carrier air wing? Only the Charles De Gaulle and the American carriers are CATOBAR. China's Fujian isn't anything because it has never sailed under its own power.

To be honest, it may be the same case as "tanks are obsolete". Only real action will tell how exactly it works. We can simulate and plan and whatnot, but as classic says: "No plan can survive first contact with harsh reality".

Carriers are not defenseless by any means. They never operate alone, and over half of the carrier strike group is devoted to missile defense. They are not obsolete

It's not the carrier you have to fear, but what's on it, and what's guarding it. The point of the carrier (power projection) is that it is an island a superpower can plant off someone's naval territory, and basically colonize its perimeter. You can try to destroy it, but no one moves that chess piece without thinking several moves ahead. Owning a carrier isn't enough. You have to be able to back it up. And if you can, it just means that your'e in a whole lot of trouble when a carrier is headed your way. Your enemy does not have to go home to go home. Your enemy has chosen to be your neighbor without even setting foot on land.

7:35 The Expanse really got me hooked to Vernier thrusters.

I think directed energy weapons will really up the aircraft carrier’s game. The nuclear reactor will provide enough power for lasers that are able to down large missiles.

@vic5015

9 ай бұрын

Eventually, maybe. Not in the near future.

@MikeZ8709

9 ай бұрын

@@vic5015 In 1984, producers of Terminator had Arnold wear a hidden batter pack with a cord to power the dim red LASER on one of his guns. In 1998, "LASER pointers" became a school fad and my brother and I bought them at the Sunoco for $16.99. They were Chapstik size and more powerful than Arnolds. LASER tech has come a long way in little time.

@thetendertroll4617

9 ай бұрын

The whole reason the Ford class was created was becasue the Nimitz class carriers couldnt produce enough power to support even the new radars we want to put on them... So your idea that energy weapons will replace conventional weaponry is obsurd until we discover a whole new power source way more powerful than a Nuke reactor... keep in mind a nuke reactor is just a steam engine that burns for a decade without adding fuel. Ford class carrier has enough power that it has %40 unused output for future tech not yet developed. But is that enough to power HUGE lazer guns? NO. because they need somewhere to put that weapon and all extra space is used for AIR PLANE OPERATIONS.... Because its an Airport.... not a weapons platform...

@macbuff81

9 ай бұрын

It also will, in theory, significantly reduce costs as ammunition, including missiles, are quite expensive

@themiddleman3060

9 ай бұрын

​@@thetendertroll4617 if it has space for the phalanx, it has space for a directed laser weapon.

Carriers are hardly redundant. They present a _visible_ projection of power, much like the battleships and sailing lineships of old. They are a force to be reckoned with, and while they aren't invincible, they are a significant concentration of power. Further, no Carrier sails alone, at least not sensibly. Picket ships, anti-submarine ships, fire support ships, and even more depending on the mission all contribute to the Carrier _Group's_ versatility and power projection. The Carrier is simply the centerpiece that allows a surface warfare naval group to _greatly_ extend its range of firepower, reconnaissance, and situational awareness, far more than a Battleship could. Additionally, Carriers are not front-line warships and not intended to be in the middle of a firefight. This is the whole notion of a layered defense with screening forces on the lookout for aircraft, submarines, mines, and anything else that might pose a potential threat. Contrast this to battleships that _are_ intended to be front-line warships and have to be designed with heavy armor and an even greater level of redundancy and damage control than a Carrier might. A Battleship might have to spend weeks or months in port after an engagement with an enemy force for repairs, while a Carrier, even if it loses a substantial portion of its aircraft, is very likely to escape a conflict unharmed.

@Sole-tx9cx

9 ай бұрын

SPOT ON!!!

@falleithani5411

8 ай бұрын

Carriers _are_ redundant. But late-stage capitalism has made a lot of people forget that redundancy isn't waste, it's _security._ One is none, two is one. If it's important, it _needs_ redundancy. And in the context of combat, you want your redundancies to be as varied and distinct in their strengths and weaknesses as possible, for the same reason you aren't allowed to put a fire exit door right beside the only other exit door when designing a building.

@ryetoaster

3 ай бұрын

​@falleithani5411 redundancy is abundancy. The criticism of capitalism is its creates waste the criticism of communism is that it creates shortages. These are valid but I'd rather have abundance and waste than efficiency and shortages

Carrier flotillas are a mobile military base. They can do all the functions an army base can perform, but at sea. They are also no more vulnerable than any other forward air station. The one thing people forget seem to always forget when evaluating military assets, is that the equipment itself is just a single cog in a much larger machine. Our equipment isn't that much more advanced than other nations, and sometimes it is a closer good enough than being top tier. It is our training, intelligence gathering, command and control, and experience that makes all the difference. In order to take out a carrier group, you need to have real time data on the position and disposition of the flotilla for an extended period of time. For a good example of carriers, land and sea based aircraft, surface ships and submarines all fighting in a symmetric battle, look at the Battle of the Philippines. All domains got some good licks in on the carriers, but only the side with the better intelligence, training, and command/control. Otherwise, both side were pretty equivalent. While on could argue that was in WW2, and fair enough point, the balance between the three domains and their ability to counter each other has stayed about the same. Carriers have a role so long as America has to be the world police of the open sea.

My great grandfather commanded a escort carrier back in the day, CVE-116, USS Badoeng Strait, he also commanded a squadron of PBY-5 Catilinias, he would be pleased to know that both Catilinas and escort carriers will be coming back in modern variants (the makers of the Catilina will be making them for Anti-piracy operations and fire fighting among other things)

@baconsnake6463

9 ай бұрын

Have you seen that they’re trying to make an amphibious c-130? Island hopping’s back on the menu

@Yuki_Ika7

9 ай бұрын

@@baconsnake6463 yup, i have seen it, it is a beauty!

I always think it dangerous to say a weapon system it redundant. In recent years, close air support aircraft and tanks were both declared as such. Truth is no one can predict the future so we want as much depth of capability and systems as possible.

@icanreadthebible7561

9 ай бұрын

Agreed. "Two is one, one is none". Stuff breaks, fails, etc.

@meh7348

9 ай бұрын

Murica 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@neilyoungman9814

9 ай бұрын

I'm sure mines and trenches were declared obsolete decades ago.

Just a technicality: LHA stands for Landing Helicopter Assault, not Lightning... : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Helicopter_Assault Of course, Lightning is more descriptive of what it can carry, but not how fast it goes (according to published data).

Perhaps you haven't noticed "The Island" on the Ford Class has been MOVED! Breaking 80 years of traditional location!!! Cheers!

The US does not have „Lightning Carriers“, they have Amphibious Assault Ships. These can be used in a secondary role as Lightning Carriers, but they then lose their primary role of transporting marines. Consequently, only rarely the ships will be used this way and as far as I know no dedicated Lightning Carriers are planned to be commissioned.

@wheels-n-tires1846

8 ай бұрын

Actually a couple of the LHAs were built to be avaition_centric, and they don't have well decks. Frankly a stupid idea, since VTOL f-35s aren't very useful without organic tanking and AEW...

@stephenchappell7512

7 ай бұрын

The UK's QE's are in effect 'Lightning carriers'

Correction Ford Class replaced the Chester Nimitz class , not the Enterprise class of carriers.

The carrier was not a surprise in WW2. A year before Pearl Harbor the US started building 10 carriers which formed the core of the Essex class. PearlHarbor just accelerated the change.

@Talshere88

9 ай бұрын

A year before pearl harbour. So a year AFTER WWII had started. Just because the US was late to the party doesn't mean you get to change the date to pretend you had a foresight everyone else lacked. In 1939 the US had just 5 CVs. 2 less than the royal navy. It was most certainly a battleship fleet.

@crowe6961

8 ай бұрын

@@Talshere88 We had a lot less to defend than the Royal Navy overseas back then, and our geography close to home is far more advantageous.

L (landing) these are amphibious assault ships for OTB (over the beach) operations as an element of a Strike Group. The “lightning carrier” concept is a secondary ROC/POE (required operational capabilities/projected operational environment with a secondary sea control mission as an operational capability in restricted sea lines of communication (supporting combat operations in the restricted waters of an archipelagic theater) and is not the primary designed mission for this class of ship.

In the US Navy, a ship needs to have a catapult to be considered a carrier. We classify LHA's as Amphibious Assault Ships.

It is apparent that nobody involved in the making of this video has an informed and rational conception of the projection of power at sea. Such concepts involve far too many subtleties and nuances completely lost on 99% of people because, hold onto your hats, playing World of Warships won't make you even a beginner on real world naval issues.

One of the things I remember from the novel "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy in which the Soviets launched some 160+ cruise missiles at a combined U.S. Navy carrier group. Some of the missiles were shot down by the CAP (Combat Air Patrol), more downed by picket ships on the perimeter with their own missiles, still more destroyed once within the carrier group's area of control, then finally by the CIWS (Close-In Weapon System). Still, a mere handful got through to wreck havoc on the carriers.

@triadwarfare

9 ай бұрын

It's interesting that you can get a cruise missile to connect without putting that many missiles if you catch the enemy by surprise. Recent example was the Moskva where it only took 2 Neptune missiles to take it down. In the Iran-Iraq war, 2 Exocet missiles got to USS Stark where one failed to detonate because it was carried by a modified civilian private jet and they attacked before they could confirm its identity.

@rockbutcher

9 ай бұрын

Still think that was the best book he ever wrote.

@UnsolicitedContext

9 ай бұрын

@@triadwarfareyep, which is why the US navy spends, somewhat annoyingly out of context, so much money training to minimize that. Also why you do maintenance properly, if the radars don’t work *cough moskva* and the people aren’t trained, it’s just a giant lump of metal. It’s also why our attack missiles are focused on stealth & decreasing reaction time not ‘hypersonics’

@Inkling777

9 ай бұрын

​@@rockbutcher Yes, that or _The Hunt for Red October,_ although _Red Storm Rising_ is far more complex. Given the war Russia is fighting right now, I'm currently listening to the audiobook version of _Red Storm._ His insights about the Russia army in the 1980s still hold true today.

@crowe6961

8 ай бұрын

@@triadwarfare The Moskva's air defenses were almost totally inoperable and their radar was known to interfere with their communications due to questionable engineering or a system fault. The maintenance report was a nightmare. Only one of three engines was fully operational _before_ the missile strikes, for example. The crew also appears to have been distracted by a random Ukrainian drone on the opposite side of the ship.

I think the future will see Drone carriers. Fully automated navigation, operations (recharging and rearming the drones) and defense/evasion. Maybe a few techs on the larger ones.

@Yuki_Ika7

9 ай бұрын

So the new Turkish Flagship is a precursor to what you are talking about then? Like it is an aircraft carrier but all aircraft are drones, granted they still get maintained by humans and piloted by humans at stations (besides when they are on autopilot) and it still has a human crew, but yeah, what you are describing sounds like a more advanced version on that ship Edit: seems it will also operate helicopters too, the ship is called the TCG Anadolu

@jyyyb

9 ай бұрын

Yes

@Inkling777

9 ай бұрын

And anything that gets broke doesn't get fixed. Crazy, absolutely crazy. You're have no understanding of what takes to maintain high-tech equipment. A fighter, manned or a drone, takes hours of human maintenance for every hour it spends in the air. I try, but I really can't understand people who have such a poor understanding of life's complexity. Everything is a novel, in this case a scifi novel.

@aluisious

9 ай бұрын

I know you don't do anything practical for a living when you're talking about a warship operating tons of smaller vehicles without everything breaking all the time.

@aluisious

9 ай бұрын

At least 1/3 of people don't do anything at all for a living. They're professional lackeys. You can't expect anything from them.@@Inkling777

The carrier is a great asset for power projection but it is the combined power of the fleet that matters and a carrier group with its cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines give the navy a tool for every job and the carrier gives it the air cover and strike capability needed. Cruise missiles are great for striking targets on shore but a carrier equipped with stealth aircraft like the F-35 just adds to the effectiveness of the fleet. The carrier's payload and C&C abilities will always make it the heart of the fleet but it is just about how you use them.

I'd be willing to bet that nobody could ever sink a Ford class carrier. Experience teaches this because when the Oriskany was turned into an artificial reef in the Gulf of Mexico, it took eight months of cutting metal in order to make it sink, and even then, she didn't go down easily.

Escort carriers = CVE, often said to stand for "Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable."

@williamcostigan91

9 ай бұрын

Taffy 3: "Accurate, 100% confirmed, has anyone seen Task Force 34?"

@robbieaulia6462

8 ай бұрын

To be fair, that is an understandable statement, especially when it's made by the soldiers operating said ships.

1:15 - Chapter 1 - Bringing the classics out 2:20 - Chapter 2 - Background 3:45 - Chapter 3 - Escort carriers sea control ships 5:35 - Chapter 4 - Aircraft carriers 7:15 - Chapter 5 - The threats 10:25 - Chapter 6 - Little package , big results 12:35 - Chapter 7 - So what do we think

"The Enterprise Class" was ONE ship. USS Enterprise was deactivated on 1 December 2012!!! Cheers!

So... cruse missles are actually super easy to shoot down with automated systems. Anti ship missiles even more so because its way easier to calculate their target.

They are not redundant and will not be for a while.

@randytessman6750

9 ай бұрын

A thousand Chinese anti-ship missiles say different

@megarafjogos

9 ай бұрын

@@randytessman6750 out of those 1000 chinese anti-ship missiles, 750 will missfire, 200 will miss the target, 25 will fall on the water, 12 won't explode and another 12 will be taken out. What about the 1 that's left? it was never fired to begin with, american aircraft had already blown it up...

@randytessman6750

9 ай бұрын

China ! not russia ....lol@@megarafjogos

@jetli740

9 ай бұрын

@@megarafjogos your assumption is way over your head, china have anti AC hypersonic missile, they have successful test on a moving target. currently no nothing can neutral a hypersonic missile

@megarafjogos

9 ай бұрын

@@jetli740 china have diesel aircraft carriers that wouldn't even need to be shot to be downed. How can one launch an hypersonic missile when b-2/b-21 bombers, f-22s and f-35s have been having a field day with your military installations... We've been at this for decades. America will fall against the new soviet tank. Proceeds to develop, build and field a tank that vastly outperforms the russian one in huge numbers. America will fall against the new soviet jet. Proceeds to build a jet so good that even 50 years later it can go head to head with the best china and Russia have to offer. The f-22 and f-35 are horrible aircraft and they can't dogfight. Turns out going against them is like taking a knife to a gunfight, and China's newest is still years behind the now 20+yo F-22's capabilities... By the time the hypersonic missiles become a problem, the us will have already fielded some kind of countermeasure or tactic around them.

In world war 2 Japan seems to have split its bets. The Yamato and Musashi were definitely battleships. It's just a shame they never operated with proper air cover as the aircraft carriers had been sunk.

@kacperq1987

9 ай бұрын

They also were never used in operations, which have gives them any chances, but create a more problems for IN, because they need strong escort, which have to be took from other task force (like on Midway)

@randomname3109

9 ай бұрын

@@kacperq1987 also, there was never enough fuel for them

@Itsmattz

9 ай бұрын

Shame for who?

@AudieHolland

9 ай бұрын

Agreed, such a shame. *Ten Thousand Years!*

@einundsiebenziger5488

8 ай бұрын

In World* War* 2,* Japan seemed* to have ...

I love your stuff and your style!!

I would imagine a combination maybe the controllers being mass drone swarming types while the larger ships would launch f-35s , NGAD, electronic warfare type planes would be interesting to see

I believe there was a Sea Control Ship (SCS-1) concept initiative before

@Rob_F8F

9 ай бұрын

The Sea Control Ship concept was first developed in the 1970s as a way have having more aircraft carrying hulls.

@kempmt1

9 ай бұрын

@@Rob_F8F how big were the ships to be?

@Rob_F8F

9 ай бұрын

@@kempmt1 The SCS was to displace between 10,000 (light) and 13,000+ (full) and have a length of 620 feet. Cost was to be 1/8 that of a super carrier. They were intended to supplement, not replace, supercarriers in the US Navy.

@stephenchappell7512

7 ай бұрын

The design was sold to Spain who built one for itself and one for Thailand

The carrier is definitely undergoing transformation and must share the glory with land-based aerial defense (Guam, Philippines), sea-controlled carriers and destroyers … all the Gerald R. Ford needs to do is stay out of the reach of long-range missiles and let the rest of the fleet do all the dangerous work! Never put all your eggs in one basket!

the bitrate of the free 1080p has never looked worse.

Yea, some of these folks bring up a good point. To the US Navy, an “Aircraft Carrier” is really a big fleet of 15+ ships. There just happens to be a giant carrier in the middle of it haha.

Seems like the future is a cargo container ship full of cheap drone launchers that just flood high tech defenses

@Rob_F8F

9 ай бұрын

Drone carriers will certainly be part of the future.

@crowe6961

8 ай бұрын

This is why the Navy wants megawatt-scale air defense lasers, and is working on smaller prototypes.

The concept of a mobile airstrip you can put wherever you want to deploy and project airpower will never ever become obsolete. What shape they take, how they're used, etc may change, but the basic concept is too good of an idea to retire.

@kenoliver8913

9 ай бұрын

But when airpower, in the form of missiles and also routine aerial refuelling, can cover the planet perfectly well from land how can a floating airbase with accompanying city-sized support be remotely cost-effective? It's not that a big carrier doesn't have an awful lot of bang but that you can get even more bang for the same buck other ways; that is true in spades for any country that is mainly concerned with its own region (eg China) rather than trying to protect a global empire. And a land airbase cannot be sunk too.

@MLaak86

9 ай бұрын

​@@kenoliver8913 Please pay attention to the actual point I raised - the concept of a carrier. Not specifically the current super carriers... Also yeah how do you refuel 70+ aircraft en-route to a strike mission? Think, please.

@metalogic1580

9 ай бұрын

@@kenoliver8913 Nevermind the fact that you never want just one way to blow up your opponent, since it's too predictable that way, being able to deploy up to 90 aircraft anywhere in the world at all times is something that missiles will never be able to replace. Tomahawks aren't very good at recon either.. you need eyes up there to know what you're blowing up (usually). You want to know where how and when your opponent is coming before you have to start shooting up missiles

@MLaak86

9 ай бұрын

@@metalogic1580 Yep - not to mention how much of a "please come shoot us down" it'd be to have a huge fleet of tankers in the air.

@crowe6961

8 ай бұрын

@@MLaak86 We already tend to have a pile of tankers in the air for large-scale Air Force operations. They have fighter cover. We've been doing this for decades.

5:25 I think, that this information is somewhere over the edge - for example Unryū was commissioned in 3 years from order

WW2 showed us that no they aren’t redundant. What happens when you have to fight in multiple theaters?

11:19 - LHA is US Navy-speak for "landing helicopter assault." It's a type of amphibious assault ship. Designed to carry US Marines and their helicopters. USS Tripoli (LHA-7) is being tested as a 'Sea Control Ship.' FWIW, various countries have been operating small carriers since the late 1940s on wards. See Colossus-class and Majestic-class light carriers. Plus others. Also, the Sea Control Ship is a US Navy concept that has been around since the 1960s.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

And some other countries have long operated what are LHAs designed with strike and antisubmarine capability, which capacities vary markedly. That is, they are Sea Control Ships.

Star destroyers are so much more than aircraft carriers. Yes they carrier a ton of star fighters, but they can also lay waste to a whole planet. Theyre more of a carrier and battleship put together

@Alloy682

9 ай бұрын

Yea. Let's make a venator ISD2 hybrid

@anydaynow01

9 ай бұрын

This does touch on the point that orbit is the new high ground, and a few tungsten rods dropped from a satellite will ruin a flotillas day. That being said small submarine drone carriers would be the way forward, or at least more cruise missile ones.

My brother worked on an LHA and we got to tour it during a tiger cruise. I think you could make a really cool video on just this class of ship. It was essentially an entire amphibious assault force in one ship, with air support included. The coolest part is that the whole ship lowers itself in the water in order to launch its amphibious assualt ships. Just saying, might be worth a look

@foodofthemasses

9 ай бұрын

I served on the British version (HMS Intrepid) in the 80’s. Not the most comfortable in rough weather due to the flat bottom. However, as you say a great concept and versatile. 👍

Carriers will always be important, and the new backbone of NAVY'S.

Aircraft carriers are the opposite of redundant. They are indispensible. The issue is in how their operation and capabilities are typically misunderstood. It's possible to deny them access to particular areas, but only at extreme cost and national effort. You aren't dealing with a single ship, but the bulk of that nation's navy surrounding it as well.

In Ukraine, we discovered that the US missles defense is capabilitie shooting down hypersonic missles. It will be easier on the water where the topography is simpler for radar.

@Brody961

9 ай бұрын

Yeah but how many missles did it take for Patriot to shoot down Russias hypersonic? How many were coming at once? No air defense is 100%. If a country like China ever attacks a US carrier, you can be damn sure they're not sending 1 or two missles at a time. Any air defense can be overwhelmed with volume

The real question is, what do you need in a carrier. With land bases all over the globe and the long distance of aircraft and missiles, the need to have all that force 200 miles off the coast is no longer necessary. I think getting boots on the ground would be a priority. A few propeller airplanes that can drop cargo, and people would define the size. Add a bunch of helicopters for transport and support can also be added. Once this is defined, then you add support ships for the mission and an attack sub.

I think something missing from this analysis is the non-combat roles that large nuclear powered naval vessels can perform. For example, in the aftermath of tsunamis, nuclear powered aircraft carriers have been hooked up to local power grids to provide power to areas the size of small countries, saving thousands of lives.

Redundant isn't the right word. Redundant means "exceeding what is necessary." That would suggest that a fleet with far less than a carrier fleet could serve as well. Someone with a better vocabulary can argue that carriers are ineffective or even obsolete in an era of surface- and air-to-ship missiles. But that claim has a major problem. If a carrier fleet with high performance aircraft to guard it isn't safe, _then no surface fleet is away from a nation's own shores._

I cannot get enough of Simon's sass and wit

Let’s consider how many times we’ve gone to war over that cup of tea

People argue for smaller aircraft carriers as if physics would not punish you severely with the square cube law.

Any chance of doing a video of the Bagger 288 or the Class 43 (InterCity 125)?

2 years ago tank battles were said to be a thing of the past

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

And still are. Almost none of those destroyed tanks were killed by other tanks.

12:25 Yeah, that 'extra' $100M, we even have a term for that, we call it "budget dust", and it can end up being used to fund all kinds of stuff that otherwise would've been left out.

Simon, you mentioned the Marine Corps amphibious warfare ships near the end of the video. We’d love to speak with you about them sometime if you’re up for it. LHAs/LHDs have a slew of capabilities that your audience would probably be interested in seeing a video about.

@erikrick

9 ай бұрын

If you hook him with that, try and get him to do something on MPF forces too.

The Navy is slimming down and becoming more amphibious with lightweight ships and armor especially the Marines it's a good strategy

Nothing ever becomes redundant immediately. Even after the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship it still served a purpose. The battleship went from primary sea combat to supporting ground troop landings acting as artillery in a way. As long as jets and other aircraft will be needed to cover ground troops the carrier will have a purpose. A missle can't fly over and report back or change targets on the fly so even drones will need a platform to launch from if they replaced all our manned jets today. Also a side note a old decommissioned aircraft carrier had to have a Navy Seal team plant C4 to sink it after many days of torpedos and missile attacks failed to do the job. So good luck sinking one, that is if you can even get close. Also while they hold the name Aircraft carrier they do way more than that. They also transport ground troops and tanks and gear. Most have a wet wells for launching amphibious assaults. The real issue is you fail to realize how combined arms works. War is not chess, where one piece always beats another and it's checkmate. It's more like a game a technology-Sorry where the race has always been who has the latest tech and training on that tech and who can apply that tech in a combined air land and sea combat strategy the most effective. For this reason certain things like a mobile airfield on the seas will be needed until the use of aircraft jets no longer need it, or become obsolete themselves.

Okay, some things confused or lightly handled - let me add some things. 1. Procurement of toys barely follow the rule of 'what you need', but many, many other aspects more dominantly. So some nation might build, and even benefit, from a design that is absolutly pointless in actual battle now or in the future. Its wierd, but so is economy and warfare. 2. Comparing single toys is easy, as you just have to ask "what enemy/theater is adressed with this design" and look what toys these areas have to offer to kill it. We can do this quick math, and its just a bit more more complex than what has been slimplified here. 2.1 Are US carriers/SCS obsolete? Well, yes. Both supercavitation torpedos and hypersonic missiles are availabe to a range of potential hostile nations, and therefor there is no defense to protect such a jucy target (which lost renders the whole operation a failure). CIWS has long been deemed incapable of adressing modern threats. Germans f.e. has gone into more sopisticated ammo and tracking, and the US has going the SeaRAM way, using missiles for the defense purpose, just to find that thersensors are still too lousy, ther ECM-protection not solid enough and ther response times being a joke, rendering the US defenseless at sea to any reasonable force they might encounter. But we could ignore all of that and just look what happend to active & alert US carrier groups in manouvers. And time and time again carriers have been wrecked by cold war diesel submarines from several allied nations (some of this 'carrier killers' going into retirement for age after the manouver). So even if comparable in tech (whcih the're not), the US wouldn't manage to protect ther carriers propperly. If the same counts fro other nations is debatable, but most of relevant navys (including RU) have way better records and at least some tricks and concepts up ther sleeves. Meanwhile, the Ford-class deployes a thousend ton system that only is relevant when a battlecruiser form WW2 pops up from a time jump - and make of that info what you like. (3) Another thing i like to add is that there isen't just cruise missiles. These are a old thing, and only the most modern are gamechangers - mostly for ther speed what avoid tracking or pinpoint accuracy to shoot them down. Also the're kinetic enough to even destroyed are technically a railgun round punching your ship. With the modern weaponary also extending to nations lile the Phillipines, technically power projection by ships is a riscy bed on the enemy unwilling to escalate the whole thing by easily sink all your assets. And that's the situation of today. There is no propper defense against the last generations of weapons, and the last (stupid) hope, direct energy weapons, have been installed and deinstalled in shamefull silence soon after. And with chinese having fun to sink money in every kind of whatever sounds modern, and RU now focusing on e-warfare aircrafts and heavy drones ... we all get a idea where all this lead to. RU and CH in sometimes weir ways go ahead and establish a new arms market, while the US is falling behind and invest in fancy ideas a nine year old could have explained them is stupid in the first place. Empires - they just come and go in waves.

I really really appreciate the less exaggerated voice in this video. I find it distracting and off putting when I can hear people force their voice into a deeper register for parts of words. The rhythm and pace of the speaking is important and trying to sound a certain way that isn’t natural kinda messes that up.

Carriers always come with escorts, along with auxiliary vessels. You won't see a Carrier without a few destroyers and a sub lurking around.

A couple comments: First, many cruise missiles travel at sub-sonic speeds and their real threat comes from their low altitude approach (sometimes just over the wavetops) and capacity for terminal maneuvering (maneuvering during their final attack run), as well as the risk of saturation attacks (launching more missiles than the air defense system can counter). Hypersonic cruise missiles with terminal maneuverability pose a much greater threat for the reasons you mentioned, although I'm not aware of any being publicly demonstrated to be fully operational yet. One point about the Ford class is that it was designed to produce something like twice as much electricity as it currently requires to allow for improvements to be made for years to come without overtaxing the ships' power systems (among other future-proofing). With that, it is unlikely that the ships constructed thus far will find themselves unusable for an extended period of time, only until appropriate counter-measures are designed and installed (if they aren't already). Whether the military needs will continue to justify the expenditure is another question. Finally, regarding WWII, while the US did build a large volume of escort carriers, they continued to build fleet carriers as well, because they filled different roles and offered different capabilities (one modern example being that Ford-class carriers are nuclear-powered while the America-Class (including the Tripoli) are gas-powered).

The aircraft carrier could be rendered obsolete. Possibly in the future, aircraft will be drones instead. Using catapults or the rocket launching technique on smaller ships such as destroyers to launch the drones. Basically the aircraft are spread out over the fleet, making it harder to lose aircraft cover during a battle. An aircraft carrier if lost means no aircraft cover for the fleet. Like the saying "it is unwise to put all the aircraft in one basket" which is what aircraft carriers do. However I think that this sort of style won't appear unless there is a proper naval war, and after drone tech is improved upon further to be able to do more tasks. In other words, aircraft carrier is not *yet* obsolete.

@phoenix211245

9 ай бұрын

The problem is how much payload you can carry. We are talking about multiple tonnes of payload here. A drone will only be slightly smaller than a plane, so you still need to provision for a similar sized landing deck even if you go full VTOL. In which case you give up too many other useful systems to make the ship worthwhile for anything other than carrier duties. Afaik, launching small drones would frankly be less effective in naval warfare than using missiles, which current naval ships are perfectly provisioned for.

The USAF being globally located adds preplanned redundancy, the USN can simultaneously extend power without the preplanning. It's synergy.

The future is probably all about drones. Small, expendable and lethal. We need to find a way to deploy drones quickly but also prepare for them. I could see a massive swarm of drones overwhelm a larger carrier to the point of putting it out of commission for a while.

Didn't experts once say, "Guns on a a jet with missles are useless?" The F4 proved that theory wrong. Experts are usually wrong about the future of warfare.

Simon starting the video like it's Brain Blaze, then remembering it's a Megaproject

WW2 Escort Cariers designation was CVE aka "Combustible Vulnerable Expendable" Having said that the Escort Carriers of Taffy 3 played a large part in forcing IJN Center Force to turn away and withdraw protecting transport ships, supplies and thousands of men that had recently been landed. IJN center force at the Battle of Samar was battleship Yamato and her escorts. Yamato on her own displaced more than the entire Taffy 3 force which was nothing more than 3 destroyers, 4 destroyer escorts and 6 Escort Carriers with support from whatever land based and Taffy 2 aircraft that could be mustered and thrown their way. There are accounts that show Taffy 3's defense was so aggressive that the Japanese were convinced they were facing a much larger Fleet element of cruisers and Fleet carriers. Because of that they continued to use AP rounds for much of the battle. The up to 18" Battleship grade, 8" heavy cruiser and even 6" light cruiser armour piercing shells were punching straight through their lightly to unarmoured targets instead of detonating inside them, so the destroyers and destroyer escorts were able to inflict a hugely disproportionate amount of damage on the Japanese further convincing them it was a significant opponent. The CVE's just took the punishment, kept on running and servicing any aircraft that was in the fight as long as their deck was intact instead of instantly being turned inside out by the up to 18" high explosive shells they could have been subjected to from the outset.

Please note The aircraft carrier, The ship itself that is has limited self-defense capability. The self defense capability comes from the aircraft it carries and the carrier strike group the carrier sales with. For example the Arleigh Burke class destroyers that carry around 90 missiles and also torpedoes. Ships of a carrier strike group from a screen like a protective bubble around the aircraft carrier. Tanks in isolation as shown in Ukraine are vulnerable, but protected by infantry and infantry fighting vehicles and air cover are very effective. The aircraft carrier ceiling sees alone is extremely vulnerable. But protected by the submarines and surface ships of the strike group becomes very effective and will continue to do so. Yes China has hypersonic weapons America is aware of this and I am sure programming It's missiles to defeat them. That's not to say the carriers are involveable and might take hits, but it is my opinion The America can meet these challenges.

The first generation of aircraft carriers had little to no anti-aircraft capability but retained surface weapons. We often don't know how weapons platforms will employed until they are thrust into the future battle.

@smalltime0

9 ай бұрын

thats because a lot of them were laid down as battleships, then the aircraft carriers proved how effective they were

One thing that worries me most is that Germany plans to build 2 of there own. Germany, Italy and Japan having Carriers is just something that shouldn't happen.

The Sea Control Ship concept is not the logical substitution of the aircraft carrier. It is the next best thing. The only ship, which was designed with it in mind was the R-11 Principe de Asturias and the Spaniards did not build it, because it was just as good, but because they could not afford an actual aircraft carrier. The size of the carrier might increase building and operational costs, but it also gives four features, that the small Harrier-carriers could not possibly compensate: 1. larger size means more space for larger and more potent types of aircraft, 2. it also means more space for a more balanced mix of aircraft in the air wing, 3. it also means that larger and more effective radars and air defense systems could be installed and 4. larger size does not automatically mean larger threat and increased threat of being targeted. A vessel twice the size does not have twice the radar signature. Larger internal spaces means that there is more space for more sophisticated systems to reduce its infra red signature and more effective means to reduce its acoustic signature.

I hope I'm not the only one to notice that the very first ship shown isn't a carrier, it's a Wasp Class LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), which is a Amphibious Assault Ship, while it looks like a carrier it only carries Helicopters and vertical take-off and vertical landing jets like the Harrier and now the the USMC F-35 in terms or aircraft. It has no catapult to launch jets, and it's got no resting cables to catch them for landing. Otherwise its purpose is launch Marines directly from the ship to the water to make Amphibious landings or thro the use of helicopters to the beach also. The one shown here is LHD-7 USS Iwo Jima. I spent 8 an half months on LHD-3 USS Kearsarge.

Some important things were missed from the "threats" section of this video. The first is the advent of hypersonic missiles. These would likely be impossible to track and destroy. The second is saturation attacks, as proven by the millenium challenge exercise, where carrier group defences were overwhelmed by the sheer number of cruise missiles fired at once during the exercise. This resulted in the loss of one carrier, ten cruisers and five amphibious ships. The exercise was halted and constraints put on "opposing forces", which effectively tied their hands behind their backs to ensure the result was what the top brass wanted it to be. The third thing that was missed out is the weakest element of a carrier group, but essential to keeping it effective. It's supply ships are what keep it operational. Target those supply ships with little to no defences, and the carrier group just becomes a floating convoy, incapable of moving, projecting power and even defending itself. Take away the supply ships and you''ll find it impossible to feed those on board, have enough munitions and fuel for it's aircraft and defences, as well as no fuel for propulsion for the ships that defend the carrier.

Just because a weapon system can be destroyed by a cheaper weapon system does not make the former useless. A bullet costs significantly less than an infantry. Yet no one will say the infantry is useless.

Had I known I could've been in charge of THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON IN THE WORLD when I was young... I would've gotten a dishonorable discharge pretty quick. No regerts.

I think a point was missed about the newer anti carrier missiles (and drones), not just that they are specifically designed to be anti carried but that when used in large numbers (I'm not sure the exact number that would be used maybe 10 or maybe 100) it would be impossible to stop all of them. I'm sure that a Ford class carrier could stop one D16 missile. But as is clear in the images for the video, china has/will have orders of magnitude more missiles than the US has carriers. And although these missiles are terribly expensive they are not nearly as expensive as the carrier, its fleet of F35s. Not forgetting all the lives that would be lost on the carrier to 0 on the missile.

Major conflicts, like that in Ukraine, drive military doctrine and innovation. Sea warfare is one we have not seen major innovation in since WWII. The interim doctrine for such a situation is diversification. The class of ship can be upgraded relatively quickly with needed defensive capability. It depends on the nation you oppose I guess. A super carrier could remain in the rear and use its systems to monitor the battlefield and transfer replacement aircraft to smaller control ships against China for instance, but still be effective off the coast of Iraq.

I like your solution. Settling our issues over a cup of tea. If only, hey…

14:00 CIWS, not CWIS (close-in weapon system)

Nations without AC: AC are redundant and obsolete. Nations with AC: try us.

Whistler makes inappropriate comparisons here. Comparing USS Tarawa to the USS Gerald Ford is like comparing an asparagus to a banana. The amphibious carriers cannot replace a supercarrier; they are not designed for that. The amphibious carriers are designed to put Marines down into a coastal area to control it. The Harriers and F-35s are there to provide close air support to the Marines and local air superiority over the invasion zone, not for strategic control of the seas and skies in the region. VTOL aircraft do not carry very large ordnance loads. They have neither the capacity nor the range to do that. Further, these minicarriers are oil-fired, so they cannot carry very large stocks of jet fuel or munitions due to their own fueling and machinery needs, and fleet oilers must be nearby all the time to keep a sustained tempo of operations. The nuclear-powered Ford class carrier dispenses with both fuel oil for itself and steam lines and boilers to supply the catapults, so they can stock a huge amount of jet fuel and munitions. Catapult-launched airplanes can carry much heavier ordnance loads. The Ford class needs replenishment of jet fuel much less frequently than a "Sea Control" vessel and does not need to be refueled itself for decades.

"Sea Control Ship", but shows an Amphibious Assault Ship, the USS Tripoli. It is being tested for the "(F-35B) Lightning Carrier" program

Missed the chance to call them "Helicarriers" same name as used in the Marvel universe.