Everyone's known for years the future of the navy is sharks with frickin laser beams...

@trentbyington1449

4 жыл бұрын

Tsubadai Khan 💯💯💯💯💯

@ianmoone9990

4 жыл бұрын

Almost spit out my drink while reading this hahahaha

@avery-san8692

4 жыл бұрын

"Every creature deserves a warm meal."

@tst6735

4 жыл бұрын

Doctor Evil agrees , )

@ricardoaguirre6126

4 жыл бұрын

😄😄😄

Make a video of the defensive capabilities of the Salvation Army

@JacatackLP

4 жыл бұрын

Chicken Soup Helsing Ultimate Abridged already did a great cover of that

@pentagramprime1585

4 жыл бұрын

Ya never know. The Cali National Guard just got called up to help with the soup kitchens. This keeps up we'll have Green Berets embedded inside hobo camps.

@lycossurfer8851

4 жыл бұрын

The Paramilitary branch is feared world wide

@gibbsm

4 жыл бұрын

they only have "Oppressive Capabilities".

@Dweller415

4 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂

Everyone knows that the future of naval warfare is mind controlled giant squids

@IllidanSturmgrimmDeusVult

4 жыл бұрын

Yuri wants to know your location

@erika002

4 жыл бұрын

*INSUFFICIENT FUNDS*

@luska5522

4 жыл бұрын

KIROV REPORTING

@buckeyesfan4700

4 жыл бұрын

Fail

@xamanikia13

4 жыл бұрын

And dolphins

When torpedoes first emerged there was the exact same argument made. The French developed the Jeune Ecole which basically argued that they only needed torpedo boats and with their weapons they could bring down the whole British fleet. It didn’t and the destroyer was developed to counter them. I suspect we will develop a new class of ship to do the same thing. It will likely take another decade but they should come.

@EstellammaSS

4 жыл бұрын

At the time of the Jeune École the argument is sound, most of the Pre-dreadnoughts of the era would sink within one torpedo hit or two and the engagement distance and accuracy is very low. The thing is torpedo boat didn’t disappear, rather the destroyers that was supposed to counter them became a bigger and better version of them. I suspect the same would happen again with ships arming themselves with bigger and better missiles

@krisfrederick5001

4 жыл бұрын

Right on, good point. Eb and flow

@wiinguyen3683

4 жыл бұрын

Not if we destroy our self in the process

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@krisfrederick5001 Sure too bad no one is that dumb to believe torpedoes emerge. We all know torpedoes are submerged, lmao! Remember there are ships out there already with laser gatling cannons. ;-)

@operator0

4 жыл бұрын

Hypersonics can't be fired until after the fleet is found. One of the reason Space Force was created was to develop weapons and tactics that will be used to destroy ship detecting satellites. Carrier Battle Groups can stay 500+ miles off shore and bomb the shit out of a country as long as their location isn't know to within a 100 mile radius.

This just shows we’ve never gotten over throwing rocks at each other, we’ve just gotten *real* good at it.

@tsar_zo8007

4 жыл бұрын

Nah... Look at India and Chinese. They had a fight with rocks and stones a few weeks ago.

@abrahkadabra9501

3 жыл бұрын

@@tsar_zo8007 That's true and an Indian officer died as a result of that rock throwing incident. The Indian troops were so enraged by this that they invaded Chinese territory and proceeded to kill a number of Chinese soldiers often in hand to hand combat. About 20 Indian soldiers ended up dying due to exposure in the mountains but they killed many more Chinese. China tried to keep this as quiet as possible but it got leaked out in the news as 20 Indian soldiers dying.

@GigglesClown

3 жыл бұрын

To be fair if you didn't get good at it the ones who did would end up owning you (oftentimes literally)

@leaveme3559

3 жыл бұрын

@@abrahkadabra9501 every one is quite unsure what happened

@HieronymousLex

3 жыл бұрын

Cuz projectiles are OP

Hypersonic weapons all gangsta, until directed energy comes along...

@jwadaow

4 жыл бұрын

Hypersonic weapons are inherently hardened against high temperatures and have a very short time between detection and impact, also, as they are kinetic, they only need fragments to reach the ship to cause severe damage. The problem is compounded if they carry a nuclear warhead.

@manofcultura

4 жыл бұрын

Unsubtle Major Dictator that’s if you use infrared energy, that’s too slow a method for defeating a missile. Also hypersonic weapons are very much detectable from above using infrared sensors the shear speed it travels create more heat than its own engine exhaust at the tip of the missile. Firstly the best direct energy concept is using plasma double layers trapped in it’s own magnetic field. The trouble is proving the double layer with enough energy to remain stable until it hits the target. Plasma accelerated through a device similar to a rail gun theoretically can achieve 5-10% the speed of light which is far in excess of instantaneous when compared with the meager closing speed of even re-entry vehicles. Hypersonic weapons like all kinetic weapons will be obsolete in 20 years. So if Russia and China have any sense they should use their minuscule advantage now while they can.

@benbevan1442

4 жыл бұрын

@@manofcultura 'Obsolete in 20 years', famous last words. Kinetic weapons are likely here to stay for the long haul. Weapon diversification is the future, lasers will feature prominently but they won't replace whats already well in use.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@jwadaow Fake news. Source please in the 'hardening'? Dictators spouting propaganda are not allowed in the free world. ;-)

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@manofcultura So you hide behind your fake name with some BS claims? That only proves your unnamed s-hole country is waiting for direct energy weapons civilized countries already have. If you cannot shoot down any and all hypersonic weapons in the air, space and deep space you need to stay home.

The reason the Stark "failed to engage" the missile was the geometry of the vessel: the one and only system was on the wrong end of the Frigate therefore couldn't "see" the target.

@calvinlee1813

4 жыл бұрын

The Stark switched its gear into Standby mode. Even the chaff laucher wasn't ready. The CO,XO and OOD IIRC never moved to unmask the 3 inch or CWIS. Hence why even after saving the ship, the CO and XO were relieved. The XO was in CIC IIRC.

@grobbs666

4 жыл бұрын

Well it failed right? Of course there is a reason why it did, but it still failed. Same with that Israel ship he mentions. It was switched off at the time. The fact remains that it didnt do what it was suppose to do, which is protect the ship.

@26Guenter

4 жыл бұрын

@@grobbs666 The system didn't fail since it was improperly operated. It's called operator error.

@zjpdarkblaze

4 жыл бұрын

All engages were failures. That already says something.

@kalas1988

4 жыл бұрын

exocet's werent even picked up by main radar! I knot that CIWS has its own integrated radar but anyway....

"Squidward, the robots are running the Navy!" "NOT THE NAVY!"

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, most military strategist believed it was basically "impossible" to intercept a fleet of bombers. Then came radar.

@gourmetbanana

Жыл бұрын

What fleets of bombers were there in the 1920's?

@AdmiralBonetoPick

Жыл бұрын

@@gourmetbanana There had already been small-scale aerial bombing in World War 1. Intelligent observers could see that in a future war this would be on a much larger scale. For example, Italian General Giulio Douhet (who later briefly became Mussolini's minister of aviation) published a book in 1921 called "Command of the Air" which proposed that a future war - for example between Germany and France - would begin with vast fleets of bombers pulverising each other's factories and cities. The book was translated into English and widely studied in British and American military circles.

More like the end of the Marine Corps’ tanks. Also everyone in the comments is suddenly a missile engineer and surface warfare expert who’s graduated from the Navy Postgraduate school.

@ryohandoko1450

4 жыл бұрын

That's an usual thing pal. Everywhere is the same

@Stinger913

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock > if the arguments make sense > backed up with credible sources > KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/mqKLo8Wac7Cvhco.html

@Stinger913

4 жыл бұрын

​@Drew Peacock You wound me and my feeble brain with your words good sir! I don't think I'll ever recover. But I submit the following, all your words: > feeble brain > if you want expert comments, go to an expert forum > there's nothing wrong with civilians throwing in their 2 cents "This is YT". Again, your words not mine. I don't need to have an immaculately worded thesis refuting what you said and neither do you. As for me, I am an expert in the Socratic Paradox. What about you sir? How banal of you to insult me on a KZread comments section. Kinda cliche.

@Stinger913

4 жыл бұрын

​@Drew Peacock > I'm sure you'll get over it. How *dare* you! How dare you have the utter gall to assume that I will overcome such a dastardly personal attack in this enlightened and progressive age we live in. Shame on your sir. Shame on you. > you do need to deliver a valid counter-argument You miss my point; no I don't. > Me? I'm not an expert in anything Clearly. > But I wasn't mocking people, you were. OK. That's cool. > What are YOU an expert in? Haven't we been over this? I don't have to prove anything to you, you said it yourself, you want expert comments, go to an expert forum. Here you may deal with all of my unqualified comments, comments that waste your time, and pointless prattle. I don't recall anything in the KZread terms of service specifying I need to "deliver a valid counter-argument". What fucking world do you live in? Can't you recognize the fact that I don't have to do anything you insist I do? I didn't even say I disagree about civilians putting in their two cents. I don't know about you, but I will continue to mock whom I want. Just as you will likely continue to waste your time.

@Stinger913

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock > There's no "clearly" about it, since I didn't state anything that demonstrates a lack of any knowledge. I simply challenged your idiotic initial comment where you mocked people for no good reason. And you are free to do so just as I am free to make it. What do you want from me? A counter-argument with credible sources? I don't have to do anything of the sort on a KZread comment thread. > Yeah and you still haven't provided an answer. I have already answered this. I said I am an expert in the Socratic Paradox. And thereafter you noted that you are an expert in nothing. > So you admit you're not an expert in anything then? Actually, I am an expert in using MS Paint. But it's a God awful program. GIMP is much better, and unlike Photoshop is free. > Of course there isn't anything like that in the YT terms of service, what an idiotic comment. You see? Exactly my point. I do not need to post anything non-idiotic if I don't want to. I owe you nothing. And you owe me nothing. > if you don't admit you're a non-expert like everyone else then you have no credibility whatsoever. I need to establish credibility by admitting I have none? Like everyone else? Please, describe for me in detail, where in this comments section people declare they have no credibility, and then proceed to detail facts and "opinions" on weapon systems, doctrine, and what the future holds. I would like to see such comments. Moreover, why do I need to declare my credibility or lack thereof to everyone, when it can be easily discerned. You have a brain, and you can think for yourself whether Stinger913 is a credible or incredulous source of information on KZread. > If that doesn't mean that civilians shouldn't comment, then what the fuck does it mean you condescending prick? It means non-experts shouldn't act like they know everything on missiles and surface warfare, unless they've actually studied it. Preferably in a peer reviewed body, or through direct experience. This is not mutually exclusive to being a civilian, unless you're too daft to understand that. > Like I said, you're a prick. Indeed. > You clearly get off on trying to appear more educated than others when you're a civilian like everyone else. And even if you WERE an expert, that's still no reason to be condescending. No. If you understood the Socratic Paradox, I know that I am uneducated, and much less educated than others in this world. I just know that it is cringeworthy to see people fapping about hypersonic missiles, lasers, and anti-torpedo torpedos. These people act like they know that X will be a game changer, when in reality they know little of how X will actually be operated, and what the results will be. The sad reality is that it is all hypothetical. Not the concept of these weapons, but the speculation. That the laser will be a "game changer" per se in surface warfare. No one actually knows if it will be a revolution in the nature of naval warfare or not because it hasn't entered mass production yet. It hasn't seen widespread use in a combat environment. What unexpected failures will come across? I doubt the giddy military speculators foresaw the Zumwalt class not being able to use its guns. The experts are debating among themselves whether a VLS on the outside of the hull will actually improve survivability. Those actually studying the matter, are much more qualified to speculate on it. People of course, or 'civilians' as you seem to say, are free to speculate. You see? I have said it. Go nuts. But it's funny to see people act like they know, and that's all it will ever be, speculation. Finally, if I were an expert, it would be all the more reason to be condescending.

After pearl harbour, American Naval command gave an impossibly short amount of time to technicians to repair the fleet. But necessity is the mother of all invention and people get super creative in times of war. For this reason I don't fully accept the idea that nations only really have what they have at the beginning of a war nowadays.

“Not the Navy!”

You grossly overestimate the effectiveness of offensive weapons against ships. Just because you launch a missile doesn't mean it hits its target, even if the target does nothing to defend itself. Missiles need help targeting. That's a big weak link. Ballistic missiles aren't going to hit a moving ship if their targeting satellites get knocked out or jammed.

@vitorgas1

4 жыл бұрын

you can build thousands of missiles with the price of one ship

@gardnert1

4 жыл бұрын

@@vitorgas1 They're one-time use, though. And how effective are they? Can they hit their target? Do they even have the means to detect and target a ship? If they have it, can the US destroy that capability before they use it? There are many experts working on this sort of thing, and this general, or whatever his rank was, isn't one of them.

@googleisillukinati8071

4 жыл бұрын

@@gardnert1 the ship is just a platform. It's weapons are one time use just the same.

@gardnert1

4 жыл бұрын

@@googleisillukinati8071 "Just" a platform... that can carry its weapons much closer and fire from an unknown position, collect and relay sensor data to other ships, fire guns offensively, and intercept incoming missiles. They can carry men and armored vehicles. They can carry aircraft who can launch hundreds of sorties dropping hundreds of bombs. They can be submarines and sneak up on enemy ships, or get close to launch missiles and then sneak away, immune to any missile. Ships control sea space. Missiles do not. In a war against China, they will be instantly blockaded and their land-based missiles will be useless to change that, even if they worked perfectly. We can easily sit out ships outside the range of their missiles and fire cruise missiles to hit stationary targets, which would include their satellite uplinks that they need to feed their missiles targeting data. We can also attack their radar sites making them blind. We can attack their ports making it impossible to service their navy ships. We can attack airfields so they can't take off any aircraft. We can attack their POL storage so they run out of fuel. We can attack their bridges and dams to inhibit their movement. We can do all of these things and more, just with our ships. Meanwhile their missiles would be sitting on their launchers, unfired because they're either out of range or have no targeting data to guide them.

@luiskp7173

4 жыл бұрын

I was wondering the same. How’s a Ballistic missile be hard to defend against if you can move? I know they can be course-corrected, but even then, a system like the iron-dome can calculate the trajectory of a missile in milliseconds.

The USS Stark had CIWS/Phalanx in standby mode while cruising the Persian Gulf. It’s not a failure of the system as you stated. It was a failure of command that it wasn’t active while cruising potentially hostile waters. That’s why the captain was relieved. CIWS can track 100 targets at once, but in standby mode, it won’t track anything.

You know if navy going to end, all we need to do is put a "space" in front the navy word then they will be fine.

No mention on how awacs defeats the purpose of sea skimming missiles. As they can be detect much further away.

@truthmattison7106

4 жыл бұрын

No every navy has carrier-born AWACS platforms though.

@ignaciohavok1

4 жыл бұрын

Truth Mattison USN does

@alexocean9196

4 жыл бұрын

@@ignaciohavok1 Even smaller carrier navies like Spain and Italy have AWACS heli's for this purpose..... and French carrier operates the E-2 as well

@EstellammaSS

4 жыл бұрын

AWACS are extremely vulnerable. You can’t expect them to survive contact with an equally strengthed opponent.

Concerning the Mk15 CIWS failures in combat... in the old days the weapons officers did not trust their crews, and many a C.O. would not permit the weapon to be placed in battery to defend the ship. THAT is why the Stark wore two Exocet missiles. The crew was so untrained that the Lookout actually saw the launch of the weapon and watched the 'blue light' fly most of the way to the ship before he made his report to the OOD feet away on the Bridge. Today, the Mk15 CIWS IS in battery, cables hooked up, and firing sector hold-back tool withdrawn. We are much better equipped and ready today. With the advent/introduction of the RAM/SeaRAM the engagements are further out at about 5 miles instead of 1 mile. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is the 'Cat's Meow" for this job with its longer range (20nm), larger warhead (over 80lbs HE), and is faster (Mach 3+).

@Herb___

4 жыл бұрын

John Smith The US backed off? We killed their most important general and Iran in return fired missiles into the sand. 😂

@Herb___

4 жыл бұрын

John Smith the only thing jellified here is your tiny brain. We already hit one of Iran’s most important target and turned that POS into fried salami. That’s a fact you fuck boy. 😂

@matchesburn

3 жыл бұрын

@John Smith "I sooo seriously doubth this. Why? Trump backed off an attack..." I stopped reading there.

@mike7652

3 жыл бұрын

@John Smith Yeah, Iran with it's vast fleet of speedboats and civilian helicopters is terrifying! You're probably the type that pisses themselves over a car alarm. But hey, they did wreck a plywood mock-up of a US carrier! You're a pathetic fucking shill, and I would tell that to your face in front of your soy-fueled squad of bitches chucklefuck.

@manstonhisk667

3 жыл бұрын

@@mike7652 millennium challenge 2002. Look it up. Your entire navy got smashed by speedboats and motorcycle messengers.

Cheaper and more effective to develop anti-ship that having a fleet of ships.

@johancena2258

4 жыл бұрын

How do you protect convoys?

@garymccann2960

4 жыл бұрын

You are stuck in your controlled space, Carriers can roam the oceans and attack from many directions and hide it the millions of sq miles of ocean. But with hyper velocity rail guns and 1/2 megaton and soon multi megawatt lasers missiles will have no chance. This guy knows nothing, all battle groups keep AWACS air born at all times giving plenty of time of warning even with hyper sonic missiles.

@garymccann2960

4 жыл бұрын

Obviously you have no military experiance. The quote is the best defence is a good offense. You can not win if you only fight defensly. But you csn not win without a good defence too. Unless you are a communist you do not strike first. You hit back only after being hit. That is what MAD is all about.

@marine76a

4 жыл бұрын

Peace only occurs when there is no benefit from seizing or attempting to seize resources. That is a primary history lesson. There would be a benefit of seizing Crimea by the Russians because their geopolitical opponents did not want a major war. Similarly, the Falklands remain British because it would be too much of a cost for the Argentinians to seize it besides the Falklands not offering what Crimea offered to the Russians. Places like Costa Rica do not have a major navy and can grow economically with trade on the European and Asian sea basins because America patrols the seas.

@marine76a

4 жыл бұрын

@peace leader no, you are condescending despite being misinformed. Furthermore, placing words in my mouth rather than discussing the topic does not win you any awward but cloisters you into your mindset. You aren't here to learn or to discuss so I am not going to bother any further.

As much as it's technically an isolated incident there has been a case of a surface-to-air missile successfully engaging an anti-ship missile when in 1991 during the first Gulf War a British Sea Dart anti-aircraft missile from the destroyer HMS Gloucester successfully took out an Iraqi Silkworm missile intended for USS Missouri, also the sinking of HMS Sheffield by an Argentinian air-launched Exocet in 1982 was more complicated than simply not having adequate defensive armament.

Looking forward to this one. I've been a fan of your content for quite some time. Thanks for what you do.

@followthegrow108

4 жыл бұрын

Dont give this guy too much credit. Hes a sweaty nast neck bearded simp that loves to sh** on his own country. He never looks at the bigger picture. He always trys to pit america against the world when in reality it would be all of NATO and the US. This guy is an idiot most of the time.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@followthegrow108 Fake name anti American troll pretends to know reality and namecalls like a child, lmao!

@brokenpotato438

3 жыл бұрын

@@followthegrow108 what 3 braincells and unchecked nationalism does to a mf

That's why we have tactics..

A lot of interesting points raised. It will be interesting to see what happens with future development of TTP and weapon systems.

As far as i know, ships are still going to be relevant as land can be inefficient and air even more so in terms of transportation of mass goods. And as long as you need ships to transport stuff, youll need warships to protect those transports.

3:27 "Electronic countermeasures, along with Jeff, have been a mainstay in defending naval vessels," Who is Jeff and how is he so powerful?

@davidds0

2 жыл бұрын

You should watch community. Jeff can be very persuasive

The Navy is as important as the Air Force and the Army.

@JeanLucCaptain

4 жыл бұрын

Right now the Navy is just a big expensive target. Navies need to switch to smaller stealth ships that use thier small size and speed to simply not be there.

@JeanLucCaptain

4 жыл бұрын

@FunnYfucker Aintyou ok so what about small/fast boats? It's been more or less shown that big ships are just big targets now.

@GdaySport

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think The Navy have been very important in Afghanistan...

@Tethloach1

4 жыл бұрын

As long as it has a use and an effective one than it will be important.

@OptimusWombat

4 жыл бұрын

Unless your country is landlocked.

having such valuable/expensive ships like the US "super-carriers" has one major major darwback. Admirals won`t risk anything with these ships. so they mostlike be a token force during an conflict. best example is WW1, where the Imperial german navy and the british navy avoided eachother for a very long time. Carriers where so succesfull in WW2 because they where cheaper to build than battleships and aircrafts where even cheaper. so an attack with an carrier group in WW2 was a relative low risk, because in the grand scheme of things, aircrafts where expendable.

@JeanLucCaptain

4 жыл бұрын

A trophy fleet that is nice to look at but no legit threat.

@jaredevans8263

4 жыл бұрын

That's why I think Russia might end up winning a hypothetical naval war against the US. Their ships are fairly cheap compared to their American counterparts and they are loaded with many of the world's best anti-ship/anti-air missiles, CIWS and other weapons. They have and continue to build small warships like corvettes and destroyers with powerful missiles that can take a US carrier out of combat action in 1 or 2 good hits. I agree that the US admirals would be too afraid to lose their carriers and would shelter them away from a lot of the action, making the ships near useless and a waste of money. I imagine that the US Navy would also be too cautious with their new Zumwalt destroyers. Russia can capitalize on this and put their warships to full use

@gOtze1337

4 жыл бұрын

@emosh73 yes u are right, but do u need 10-11 of them, for some powerprojection? its extreme expensive luxury to maintain so many. iam not an navy expert, but 4-6 carriers seem to be enough i guess, so that u have allways 2 ready. 1 for atlantic/middle east and 1 for the pacific.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@gOtze1337 That is like claiming Americans have enough guns so you gonna take them away. Did you forget the number of carriers is in the US Constitution?

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@emosh73 Yea Ford cannot launch one single fully loaded jet in the real world. How is that usefull?? Can you post the official US Navy hull classification to this 'American class carriers'? I say there is no such thing and you made it up. ;-)

Thank you for your videos, going into the Navy and it’s good to be able to get information like this before going in

excellent informative video with some sobering thoughts for navies going forward. well done

"In WWII the biggest guns of the battleships had a maximum range of 40 kms and a realistic effective range of much shorter." The longest ranged anti-ship missiles may have a range of 300 miles to 1,000 miles, but their actual effective range is much shorter. .. These missiles need to have a continuous track from surveillance/reconnaissance assets on a fast moving carrier, and these surveillance/recon assets will be physically or electronically attacked if they get within 500 miles of the carrier. E-2s will sanitized the area around the carrier for 500-800 miles out using F-18s to attack air breathing assets. Also, recon satellites can be dodged by carriers and their communications with ground stations will be electronically attacked as well. Long range anti-ship missiles are very dependent on these surveillance/recon assets because they only have a very small radar in the small nose of the missile. Their long range is really a myth.

@sniper.93c14

4 жыл бұрын

777Outrigger I completely agree with this. My uncle who was a missile engineer said as much to me when i talked about how such and such missile outraged defense pe on a ship. He was talking about how the trajectory and horizon affects things and that range and speed and size limit each other. Wanna go far and fast you have to be a big target that can’t manuveur as well. Wanna be fast and hard to hit you have to be smaller and sacrifice range.

@JoeBLOWFHB

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed ...when we start parking our carriers in the Gobi desert I'll be concerned. During SINKEX 2005 THE USS America CV 66 was used to determine if the ship's built in structural defenses were adiquate against modern weapons systems. They bombed, torpedoed, missiled and mined the ship for a month in the end they had to send in Navy divers to set charges. These tests were used to help design new carriers. usmilitaryupdate.com/navy/uss-america-sinking-a-supercarrier/

@jacobsweeney2330

4 жыл бұрын

damn, you sound like you a Navy Sailor with some info.

@777Outrigger

4 жыл бұрын

@@jacobsweeney2330 Former USAF pilot. But I've known a few admirals and other navy guys, mostly pilots, as well.. I love studying Naval tactics, strategy, and technology.

@jacobsweeney2330

4 жыл бұрын

Joe BLOW#25FH3975361B are you talking real life or war games? If war games I don’t buy it.

About the USS Mason, the ship did intercept the missiles

@NavalGuide

4 жыл бұрын

Its unclear if the missiles were intercepted or if they fell short on their own.

@ignaciohavok1

4 жыл бұрын

Iverson3 they fell short cause of the decoys... which sorta counts as interception

@rusher2937

4 жыл бұрын

@@ignaciohavok1 not as interception, but as successful employment of countermeasures.

@NavalGuide

4 жыл бұрын

Ignacio Irurita Yeah like Rusher said not an interception but they still destroyed the missiles.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@NavalGuide They were not intercepted and no employment of countermeasures. news.usni.org/2016/10/10/destroyer-uss-mason-attacked-yemen Is it unclear cos US sources are blocked in your 'country'? Do not read propaganda and fake news. Stick to the direct official sources from the USNI and USN itself. How hard can that be for someone with free internet and Freedom of Information as civil right?

You always come through with the knowledge

Brilliant video im a huge military enthusiast and watch all your videos absolutely love em keep smashing it mate

I jumped on the 'Drone carrier' train at least a decade ago, now -if you are using manned airwings off supercarriers to drop bombs (that are worth a down payment on a house) on people still rocking Soviet tech; you are doing something wrong.

@saucysauce593

4 жыл бұрын

what are the drones gonna do? drop rocks?

@LENZ5369

4 жыл бұрын

@@saucysauce593 Better than using a $100k anti-tank missile to blow up a sedan.

@nil981

4 жыл бұрын

Drone carriers are the way to go.

@FortuitusVideo

4 жыл бұрын

I've been kicking around the idea of the missile battleship. A ship designed to take hits and give them out at great range.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@FortuitusVideo Yea no navy on the planet operates battleships anymore, lol! They cannot get past the rubber ducky we designed remember? ;-)

4:21 So I had never heard of the attacks on the USS Mason, but on the short reading I did, there is no way the USS Mason got lucky and 9 missiles crashed or missed. At least a few of those had to be intercepted or negated by her defenses

@christophermcanally1246

2 жыл бұрын

Given the junkyard nature of most of the weapons used by the Houthi militia, it's equally likely the missiles failed en-route.

Thanks for your videos, it’s always interesting to watch them

I'm always amazed by the quality of your content.

For a CIWS to work it needs to be both turned on and uncaged.

@Joe_Friday

4 жыл бұрын

Are they usually turned off? What do you mean by uncaged?

@Idahoguy10157

4 жыл бұрын

Joe Friday ... for a Phalanx CIWS to work it requires the system to be kept powered up. Not shut off and de-energized. Additionally it needs to be uncaged. Another word for being armed so it will automatically fire at an unexpected incoming missile. It does no good to have a defense against attack emergency weapons system inoperative. I don’t know whether the USS Stark’s CIWS would have downed the two Exocet antiship missile if was operating. We do know it couldn’t by being shut off.

@Joe_Friday

4 жыл бұрын

@@Idahoguy10157 Surely they wouldn't keep weapon systems turned off if their was a risk of conflict. But what do I know?

@ceaschannle5752

4 жыл бұрын

Where is the source for this information?

@Idahoguy10157

4 жыл бұрын

Joe Friday ... I’m pointing out an instance where a Phalanx CIWS had it been functional may have prevented USS Stark from being hit. The Stark was operating in a theater of war,. The Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war where ships were being attacked. I’ll reiterate... I don’t know if the Phalanx would have worked to stop the missiles. It hadn’t the opportunity

It will be interesting to see what effect new technologies like drone warships, drone aircraft, lasers, and rail guns have on this balance of power.

@jonathannoebel6457

4 жыл бұрын

Do u know when the US will have rail guns .Because I can't find any new information on this matter?thanks. On there ships that is.

@jonathannoebel6457

4 жыл бұрын

@emosh73 all the video I've seen said it was to good of a weapon system. That it is going somewhere.

There was an article that described switching to a so called container ship navy. Container ships are super cheap and need very small crews, and could be filled to the brim with drones or missiles.

The CIWS on the USS Stark was broken when she was attacked and her 76mm and MK13 systems were not brought on line. I served on a sister ship (USS Taylor FFG-50) and we did take out a Kormoran anti ship missile with a SM-1

Similar arguments were made when Subs armed with torpedoes emerged as a major threat to surface vessels. But ASW warfare employing Destroyers, ASW aircraft, ASW weapons etc took care of it. Similarly, novel platforms, strategies & weapons (eg. directed energy weapons) might evolve in the future to address the threat.

@operator0

4 жыл бұрын

Modern, quiet subs are death incarnate to surface navies. There's no doubt about that. A carrier task force's Achilles heel is submarines, and everyone knows it. Hypersonics are easily countered, but quite subs aren't until after they launch those torps.

@AnkitYadav-td6mg

4 жыл бұрын

@@operator0 Truly silent subs (often nuclear powered) are more oriented towards providing the strategic nuclear deterrent (via SLBMs) & minimally relegated to offensive aka 'hunter-killer' roles wherein it can be tracked via multiple channels (for instance, via frequent comm interceptions & intelligence). The SW & ASW warfare for the latter is in the typical cat & mouse race with none of the sides having a disruptive advantage unlike ASM Hypersonics wherein a saturation style attack can be devastating for an entire Carrier Group let alone a single vessel.

@operator0

4 жыл бұрын

@@AnkitYadav-td6mg The quietest subs are the newer electric boats. The Sweeds have a Stirling engine in their Goltland sub. The Spanish have a new air-independant electric sub called the S-80. These subs have the capability to destroy a CAG at will and have proven it in joint exercises. The U.S. Navy leased the Gotland from the Sweeds for two years to figure out how to counter it. The results were not encouraging. Even older diesel electric subs like the German Type 212 have been getting favorable results in wargames. Hypersonic attacks can only happen if the enemy knows where the fleet is to within about a 50nm radius. The CAGs will stay outside the range of hypersonics until the enemy's tracking satellites are shot down and the sub threat is dealt with. This will likely mean the carrier will not be in range to attack the coast line of the enemy at the start of the war.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@operator0 Go back to your video game and movies? lmao! JTFEX 06-2 was as NATO code explains sane people? Yes back in 2006 while the Gotland is a 90s submarine? As in launched in the century before this one? You probably do not understand what this means ... In the real world that means it's almost 30 years old. How is that new?

@operator0

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrFlatage Anything to say about the S-80 which I also mentioned in my reply, or are you just gonna cherry pick the Gotland which will still run rings around a CAG without well placed hunter-killers of it's own? Don't be a fool. Subs are the real threats to naval power in this world, not hypersonic missiles.

Just a thought. You might see AirCraft Carriers get even bigger (mega carriers?). This would be done to launch even longer range airplanes/drones. Smaller carriers you run into an energy problem like your talked about. Smaller carriers smaller planes or less of them.

@motmontheinternet

4 жыл бұрын

While it's true the smaller carriers will have energy problems, the fact is that this problem needs to be solved anyway because navies need to begin equipping smaller ships like destroyers and frigates with greater energy production. So maybe making smaller carriers will still be viable because the energy production will be a solved or mitigated issue. Also smaller planes might be the future, too, regardless of the size of carriers.

@Torus2112

4 жыл бұрын

That or they get smaller because they're launching drones; or maybe the range increase will cancel out the space savings of being unmanned and they'll just use Fords for the next century.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

Sorry your 'though' gives us no real design plans or even the start construction on some kinda ... mega carrier? imgur.com/fxw0pdx It's called an VLFS. I'm sure if the US could build it, it would be called mega something I agree. Don't ask me what he talks about. I have no idea, lol!

In the 1960’s it was predicted that military aircraft would disappear and be replaced by missiles. If a dispute happens at sea - navies will be required.

Thanks for the chapter!! :)

He is missing two aspects that will keep Carriers extremely valuable: stand off distance and airborne early warning. Being able to stay outside of the enemy’s range is a huge factor, since losing a single plane is not that bad economically. That plane will carry Anti Ship/Surface missiles itself, extending the range of engagement of carriers significantly. Also having an AEW plane on Open seas greatly improves your operating picture, enabling you to engage navies in the first place, since you have to locate your target before you can engage it.

Wait, I was looking forward to seeing USA build SuperStar Destroyers/Battlestar Galacticas/ Borg Cubes/ Death Stars/ etc.

THANK YOU MAN GREAT GREAT WORK THANK YOU PLEASE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.WISH YOU ALL THE GOOD AND SUCCCES

Wow nice video 👌 I recommend this to everyone

Sheffield was not armed to defend against Anti-ship missiles. It had weapons that could take and engage missiles, but it's like saying SM-2 is an anti-ship missile because it could do so, when it lacks most of the features of a proper anti-ship system. Yes the main gun on Sheffield could engage missiles. But it was a single barrel deck gun, firing artillery caliber projectiles and not medium calibers cannon rounds or smaller (yes these ~4 inch deck guns were automatic to some extent), but the system itself reported a 40 round/missile accuracy. It also had Sea Dart. Which could engage missiles. Just as much Patriot and the S-400 can (S-400 is obviously better but still). The three previously mentionned systems however lack agilitity, they are huge missiles made to engage large threats flying in an almost predictable ballistic trajectory, not against missiles sometimes smaller than them, flying at low altitude and almost undetectable to the radar. It would be like watching an 18 wheeler fully loaded trying to do perfect 90 degrees turns in the mountains where the other option is a cliff. They are just flexible in terms of anti-ballistic for selling purposes and bragging rights, it doesn't make them on point defenses against missiles (especially since even the CIWS can fail). Missiles systems such as ESSM and their Russian/Chinese counterpart have more chances but they aren't as combat proven as let's say, Iron Dome.

@KallegrandStudios

4 жыл бұрын

Me: Talks about air defence. Conversation: Turns into a normal RT news comment section.

@KallegrandStudios

4 жыл бұрын

elia haj, oh don't worry, I totally agree with him. Just not when it came to the point of introducing an under equipped ship to a conversation about how ill-prepared we are at AShW; by using HMS Sheffield as an example saying she was fitted to engage missiles and failed to do so when she was not equipped to engage missiles.

@vincere_

4 жыл бұрын

@@KallegrandStudios RT comment sections are a mess. Pretty difficult to find a reasonable discussion going on there.

@MBO_Bama

4 жыл бұрын

HMS Sheffield suffered from a lack of ECM fitted (which was fitted to other RN ships in the area) and magnesium in the alloy used in her hull. Of note, the first Argentine Exocet missed and bounced off the surface off Sheffield’s port side. The second hit but the warhead failed to detonate.

@airtech9629

4 жыл бұрын

the offices made no call to action stations, did not turn the ship towards the incoming missiles to reduce the ship's profile, and made no effort to prepare the 4.5-inch gun, the Sea Dart missiles, or order chaff to be fired.

It's all been said before, yet, the only way to influence afar from the homeland, you need a Navy. They made scale down, but the Navy will always be if theres a need for US involvement in the world

You said the DS-26 can hit ships at 3000km, it can fly 3000km that doesn't mean it can hit a ship at the end. Ballistic missiles aren't new, range has never been an issue, accuracy has. And that's for fixed targets, never mind moving ones.

CVA 42, the Franklin D. Roosevelt. I worked on the flight deck in 1972 in the Med. We called her the Rosie Boat. Only exists on film now.

Please make video about the Space Force in the future?🙏

@tobiasstamm4366

4 жыл бұрын

He already covered that a year ago: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iJ-Jms2jl8Spirw.html

@busterbeagle2167

4 жыл бұрын

Peter Yim My brother-in-law is one of the first chief Master Sergeants in the space force.

@pentagramprime1585

4 жыл бұрын

Can we please we hurry up and de-orbit an asteroid over Kim Jong Un's house?

@Joe_Friday

4 жыл бұрын

@@busterbeagle2167 What are their plans for Space Force? Are we going to have a Death Star type weapon in orbit? Maybe turn the moon into a Starkiller type base? What about a bunch of satellites with DU or tungsten rods to drop onto the enemy? How about satellites 🛰 armed with lasers to destroy nuclear missiles 🚀?

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@Joe_Friday Nope not happening. Remember the White House was petitioned to build the Death Star and declined. Their argument being not to build something a teen in a single fighter could blow up? Sure Reagan ranted about lasers on satellites to. He's dead and still no lasers, lol! My 7yo had a better plan to beat the US Navy. Call Avengers assemble and defeated Captain Kirk. See? Best to stick to plans that work.

Patiently waiting

Great video...

Really good information.

Will always be some kind of navy. As long as there is maritime commerce. There will always be pirates.

You know, I have one simple request...and that's to have ships with frickin laser beams attached to them.

@mikemartin6790

4 жыл бұрын

Only one problem if the weather is bad the laser will become increasingly ineffective as the water droplets disperse the lasers beam.

@Josh-dj9mv

4 жыл бұрын

I think he talked about this in a video he made. It's been thought of and even used but it's limited to what it can do

@kylecollins7079

4 жыл бұрын

Sad that no one else got this reference. Lol Yeah Baby!!

@krisfrederick5001

4 жыл бұрын

@@kylecollins7079 It was a random thought and I appreciate you

@krisfrederick5001

4 жыл бұрын

@@kylecollins7079 We're friends for life

That’s where you get a airborne navy going and/or airborne aircraft carriers. There is a possibility airships are going to make a resurgence and flying airbases/Air carriers are something I can see being very effective with drone swarm technology (drone swarms can be used as offensive walls and anti-missile barriers/Shields). I picture something like a flying airport with a considerable amount of vtol drones attached charging or refueling on the underside, with underside mounted turrets and rocket bays for close air surface support, the deck supporting a variety of weapons also. With a few escorting Air cruisers, that them selves benefit from the carriers defensive drone swarms.

Hey, man - it's been TWO MONTHS since you first posted this and the NAVY IS STLL HERE. WTF, Dude?

Excellent work as always... I agree with you that the navy will soon go autonomous, way before the army and airforce.

@phoenixjones7191

4 жыл бұрын

We've got drone strike fighters being built. Crazy shit man :0

Well put👍

Great Idea

As regards to the CIWS system I heard long ago that according to sailors it stands for Captain It Won't Shoot!

@terryboyer1342

4 жыл бұрын

@I'll figure it out Think I saw it on 60 Minutes back before it became all left wing propaganda. It's failure rate was terrible. Although I've also heard it had about an 80% success rate with land based units in Iraq against rockets and mortars.

@guspaz

4 жыл бұрын

@@terryboyer1342 Even if the failure rate on CIWS systems is high, does that actually mean the system isn't worth it? It's meant as a last-ditch defensive measure, so even if it only shoots down a third of incoming projectiles, that's still a third of the projectiles that won't hit their target. If they have a higher success rate on land, it's probably due to largely being used against unguided projectiles on parabolic trajectories. It just means that they're a lot better for that use case.

@terryboyer1342

4 жыл бұрын

@@guspaz For the value of the ships worth I'm amazed at how little the US Navy allocates for their defence. Would you want your son or daughter whose life may depend on its success? The Russians and Chinese seem to take defence of their ships much more seriously. They bristle with counter measures and weapons.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@terryboyer1342 So you spout left wing propaganda? Hearsay and fake news? How about the Battle of Bubiyan? Were you there hearing the screams of US sailors after Saddam launched one single ye old 1960s rocket at the US Navy? Yes yes I know they won't scream from some puny missile. They definately screamed lots on the USS Missouri when US Phalanx open fire on it's own ship. After they reset it a US pilot had to eject cos it was turned into swiss cheese. You mean failure rate during combat complete and total for US CIWS?

@terryboyer1342

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrFlatage I have no idea what you're saying. Are you drunk?

When commerce stops moving on the high seas, we won't need navies.

@Shehbaz666

4 жыл бұрын

You will need navies if the adversary takes advantage of the water.

@nicobruin8618

4 жыл бұрын

But why commerce stop moving on the high seas?

@austinrevis2217

4 жыл бұрын

What is commerce

@szeperator1649

4 жыл бұрын

@@austinrevis2217 Trading

@stoopid6036

4 жыл бұрын

he's saying this to point out that because sea commerce will never stop, neither will navies

Very nice video

A good example of modern ramped ship construction during wartime would be HMS Illustrious in 1982 during the Falklands War. It was sped up by months to participate in the South Atlantic.

The Stark’s CIWS was not operational and turned off during the engagement. They weren’t supposed leave port until it was repaired.

@maxwellbeer6757

4 жыл бұрын

demizer1968 As mentioned elsewhere, Hms Sheffield also was hit when her sea dart was inactive as they had to take down the radar to transmit a communication- other examples have been quoted of similar situations. There seems to be a trend of ships being hit when anti-missile systems are down. It suggests to me that 1) anti missile systems have not been as ineffective as the OP suggests, but 2) complicated systems are vulnerable to outages when needed for a wide variety of reasons. Of course it only takes one slip and your shiny ship is at the bottom

@maxwellbeer6757

4 жыл бұрын

Drew Peacock logically if the examples are taken from situations the systems are not switched on you could only conclude they don’t work when they aren’t switched on. To support the conclusion you state that they don’t work at all you’d need to show either they have never worked or assign a threshold condition for success. I have no idea what that would be- I am just making a point about the data in the OP and a logical conclusion from it

@maxwellbeer6757

4 жыл бұрын

Drew Peacock to be honest I was thinking of missile systems rather than phalanx. The debate highlights how little moderns systems in general have been proven in combat in recent years. I would imagine for the barrage fire you state that larger calibre guns would be better e.g 4.5”/5” to put up a larger spread of debris into the air. But with some larger and faster missiles you would probably need a large kinetic hit. But you can’t expect 100% reliability from any system going back to the mark 1 flint arrowhead. Throughout history the “sword” has generally held sway over the “shield”.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock Stick to credible sources remember? Don't post known fake news propaganda outlets sponsored by Russian rubles ... My 7yo would just call Avengers assemble and order Captain Kirk to man our laser gatling cannon.

@maxwellbeer6757

4 жыл бұрын

Drew Peacock the OP used examples of missile defences e.g. Sheffield and sea dart, that is why I commented on them

"Is [insert weapon here] becoming obsolete?" Has been a question since man found a rock and each other over the head with it. The navy is mainly fighting pirates in wooden boats. I think the navy will stick around for a while.

More content! - all of your subs p.s. awsome work

On my ship the CIWS or Phalanx system not only destroyed a towed cruise missile dummy but started to work its way up the tow cable from the aircraft, which freaked the pilot out and he dropped the tow cable and bugged out using full after-burner. CIWS is for real.

What's actually changed isn't the utility of aircraft carriers. In a blue-water arena like the mid pacific, supercarriers armed with long ranged aircraft and destroyers, the latter two armed with long ranged missiles, will continue to be decisive. What has changed is that we are not going to be fighting blue-water battles for a long time. The US doesn't have any peers in that area. It will be fighting China along the Asia-Pacific seaboard, and in this green-water arena, carriers are more vulnerable than they are valuable, and today China has no incentive or ability to challenge America in the situations in which carriers are and will continue to be hegemonic. Carriers are still too effective for their own good.

@milanradovanovic3693

4 жыл бұрын

Nonsense... Carriers are solved problem with new hypersonic missile, like Kinzhal. There is no way that carriers can defend themselves against a balistic missile shot from 3000 km and going 10 mach armed with nukes and unpredictable trajectories. Whats worse for them this kind of missile, like Kinzhal, its not too complicated to be built, its basiclly Iskander on the plane. China has such arm, India has, and many more countries will have in the neer future. Navies around world know this fact, but are reluctant to admit that they hands are tied. And the contracts are good...

@appleislander8536

4 жыл бұрын

@@milanradovanovic3693 but thats not what I'm saying. In a blue-water arena, the US will always have the range advantage, because it will have SUPERcarriers filled with 50+ F35s or Super Bugs that can carry an equivalent 3000km missile. So the carrier battle group has a strike range of 3600km, whilst China's opposing destroyers are using a surface-launched equivalent with a 2500km range. The REAL issue is stupidity; the US is unlikely to invest in ALBMs like Kinzhal for a while yet, and will be want to use carriers against land targets on the well defended Chinese coast, where they are admittedly very vulnerable.

@milanradovanovic3693

4 жыл бұрын

@@appleislander8536 Sorry if misunderstood you somehow, but if I correctlly intepret your point, what you mean by blue water arena, that is fight on the sea, seafare... But thats very limited scenario, allmost games like scenario not real one. Do you really think China or Russia will ever allow such a big US Navy formation to come close to their border without attacking them first. Those F35 will become sitting ducks for land based interceptors no airplane is a match for balistic missile chasing him... Of course US doesnt have ALBM, because those are defensive systems, US is imperial creation and its not in their plan to make defensive weapon. For what I can see, US West cost is 10 times easier target, then Chinese coast...It can be eithet destroyed or taken without much trouble either by China or Russia... Those bilion Chinese living near the coasr wont surrender that easy, but for Californians I dont no man..

@appleislander8536

4 жыл бұрын

@@milanradovanovic3693 I think you misunderstand. When I say blue water scenario, I mean the Mid Pacific. A truly Naval arena. If we must accept that hypersonics like Kinzhal will be the decisive weapon of naval combat, then in a NAVAL battle the US will have the range advantage, because an air-launched missile will have greater range than a surface launched one, and that is added to the plane's combat radius, and thus a carrier battle group, which can launch long range fightee bombers, will be at am advantage. The question of hypersonics being unavailable to the US due to imperialism is nonsensical. And take this from a Westerner, the 40 million Californians will fight harder than a billion Chinese. And, as I have already explained, the US West Coast will be unavailable to China (or any body else) because the US's blue water naval abilities are orders of magnitude superior.

Actually just sink the navies and make a subermarine navy would be a lot easier

One supposes that the answer to the worry about losing these big, expensive carriers, is to build smaller, cheaper carriers. Drone craft can be built to need a far smaller deck to launch and recover from, so to me it seems reasonable to aim to build drone-launch "escort carriers" that are similar in size to a Ticonderoga or Zumwalt.

This is great

Uh you still need to protect shipping lanes and project and hold military power beyond your countries land by transporting troops.

Air forces have the same problem air bases are primari targets

@whocares427

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah. But you can defend against that by adding lots of redundancy. Like how in some countries they design the highways to be used as backup runways.

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@whocares427 Can you post this design? Sounds made up.

@Wick9876

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrFlatage Sweden did this seriously. It's just having straight highway sections with removable central dividers and being equipped to refuel and reload from austere sites. Search "Highway strip" on Wikipedia.

@anuvisraa5786

4 жыл бұрын

@@whocares427 It is true that dispericon is a solution to the vulnerabiliti of air bases. the problem is that big asets like tankers bombers, awacs etc can´t be disperced. And air bases are more bulnerable to low level treats like small drones

@MrFlatage

4 жыл бұрын

@@Wick9876 Sorry Wiki Warrior troll. Burden of Proof over fake news propaganda outlets for low IQ people who have no education and knowledge but need a search engine. Just post the design already. Unless there is no design. PS. Bigfoot is real and he came from another planet. Go search 'bigfoot'. ;-)

This was one of the best open minded videos I've seen yet. Great job 👍👍

You still need ships to controll the open seas and the supply routes. They are also pretty much a must to project military power abroad. I do think things will change but there will be some form of need for naval power in the future

Make one about SOCOM and other special forces

@bobjohn2000

4 жыл бұрын

It’s unlikely that he will, as he usually focuses on weapons systems or broader topics, like strategy and doctrine.

@jensjensen9035

4 жыл бұрын

Bob John well special forces are also a big part of modern American(and not America) strategy, dealing with insurgents and insurgency.

@M.T.B.462

4 жыл бұрын

Special Operations Forces*. “Special Forces” (for the US, at least) refers specifically to the Green Berets.

@jensjensen9035

4 жыл бұрын

098765 Craper where did I mention the marines?

@jensjensen9035

4 жыл бұрын

098765 Craper also technically marines are special forces

When you talk about lasers and how it takes to much power for anything decent, i think to myself 'he should watch StyroPyro's new upload'.

@ReynardFuchsmann

4 жыл бұрын

And the US Armed Forces has tech way beyond that im sure.

@honkhonk8009

3 жыл бұрын

imagine styropyros shit, but powered by a litteral nuclear reactor, that is also aiming at a camera. Thats how effective lasers are going to be.

These same anti ship defensive weapons could in the more distant future be repurposed to defend against a full scale nuclear ICBM attack. This would completely change the balance of power on earth and make for an unstable future.

So highly efficient airships automated or semi automated with crew, like small bomber aircraft drone carriers, with the seas being dominated by submarines with their own entourage drone fleet of robot torpedo\ hunter killer subs. It's pretty cool.

the future is all robots... these carriers will be replaced by motherships to refuel/arm the drone swarms, everything automated...

@rusher2937

4 жыл бұрын

Not anytime soon though.

@shallot7510

4 жыл бұрын

Cool story, tell me the one about how nukes would be the future of all warfare. I think that’s my favorite.

@ns7353

4 жыл бұрын

Yea but then there are no humans in there, easier to control a robot than a human

@SECONDQUEST

4 жыл бұрын

@@ns7353 You gotta build robots, people build themselves. But no honestly it's the lack of decision making skills that holds machines back. How do they prioritize targets? How do they identify civilians? How do you stop signals from getting jammed?

@morisco56

4 жыл бұрын

Still all of thay will be useless, why have all of that if you are never going 2 use it?

Copper bottoms will solve everything . Just wants to make me laugh- nobody knows anything until the shooting starts and it’s all said and done.A perfect example is simulations done at the US Navy war college training centre using the the battle of midway and 95% of the time running the exact same historical scenario the Japanese win, yet we know better.WOUDA,COUDA,SHOUDA.

@lukemale2010

4 жыл бұрын

I mean it was a fairly even fight so it’s more likely to be a 50/50 chance I’m guessing they got that 95% chance by changing the situation for the Japanese

@uncreativename9936

4 жыл бұрын

@@lukemale2010 Yeah in wargames the US typically makes it more difficult for themselves, because winning war games is basically just jerking off.

@BlunderMunchkin

3 жыл бұрын

The United States had incredible luck in the Battle of Midway.

@kekistanimememan170

3 жыл бұрын

@@uncreativename9936 plus you don’t learn lesson by winning.

the navy will always be there...it'll just keeping changing as needed.

ive fallen into the rabbit hole of this channel, it really is a hidden gem

Everything you see in Command and Conquer: Zero hour will eventually come to reality. (Probably)

@bradz9413

4 жыл бұрын

Love that game!!!

@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan

2 жыл бұрын

China will grow larger

What about submarines? They can't be attacked by surface missiles and they can stay out for months at a time (from a US standpoint). If the US were engaged in a war with China, submarines could definitely be an effective area denial force in the South China Sea especially since the rival Chinese submarines are inferior in terms of noise levels.

@bobtank6318

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock Exactly, and in both noise level and sonar sensitivity US subs generally have the edge. Of course, there are always ASW aircraft, and the water around China isn't the deepest, so US subs subs could have some problems with MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) on planes.

@bobtank6318

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock Thanks for the info on MAD countermeasures. I had no idea these devices existed. Also, I looked up the Astute. It seems that it is very capable and I'm glad it's on NATO's side. As for how I know the capabilities of Chinese subs compared to US subs, I don't know any specifics, but historically Western navies have had the quietest submarines with the best sonar. Here's an article on how that remains true today: www.businessinsider.com/us-subs-better-than-chinese-subs-but-it-may-not-matter-in-a-conflict-2018-9 P.S. The Chinese appear to have adopted AIP technology into their Yuan class boats, but haven't quite mastered the tech and they aren't as quiet as US subs.

@bobtank6318

4 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock The article I gave you said that the Chinese subs are less quiet then the US subs, so they would detect Chinese subs and attack before being counter-detected. Also, while researching the Astute class I found that it could hold contact with US subs from a surprising distance, so they would be extremely effective against the noisier Chinese subs if NATO got called into a conflict (which they probably would be).

@bobtank6318

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevinwilt3918 Nice Princess Bride reference! But yeah, anti-ship launchers are hard to detect and then track due to their small size and mobility. And while in a more recent video Cabal questioned the DF-21's effectiveness, he said that US fleets would still have to take them as a threat and remain outside their range. That's why I talked about US submarines being able to effectively blockade the South China Sea. According to KZreadr Jive Turkey, a former US submarine sonarman who plays naval combat games, that is probably how the US would gain the initiative: flood the area with subs and strike Chinese SAGs from far away using ADCAPs.

@bobtank6318

3 жыл бұрын

@Drew Peacock Sorry I took so long getting back to you. The US naval officer interviewed in the article I sent said the Chinese had louder subs than ours, so the US Navy seemingly knows the capabilities of China's submarines. This makes sense as according to the book "Blind Man's Bluff" (I recommend checking it out, it's a good read) one of the primary jobs of attack subs during peacetime is to track enemy submarines in order in gain data on their capabilities. Of course, the US Navy could be wrong, but I doubt it. Edit: replaced wartime with peacetime

Railguns :) - If they can be made to fire rapidly then the range of a CIWS-Railgun could help here :)

You have a problem when an reasonably fast aircraft can drop a string of mines side, forward and aft of a surface ship. But I guess that's what subs are for. Then again those dam buster raids of 1943 on the Ruhr show how inventive the mind can get.

I think the future of navies will be in underwater like underwater destroyers, cruisers or even aircraft carriers. Pun not intended.

I love the initial music, I was wondering if I could download it, or what it sources so I can play it on my car on long drives. It really sounds like the shit is going down With that music introduction!

@zohar9971

4 жыл бұрын

I think its just the same music from all the song but on a higher volume, so, BTS prolog by kevin

@joemikey278

4 жыл бұрын

Glamour זוהר תודה !

@wanjevi

4 жыл бұрын

With you on that one 😀

yeah something tells me it could be an interresting time in the future for the NAVY

@Natogoon

4 жыл бұрын

NAVY

The Phalanx works but it depends on the mode it’s in. One mode would shoot down anything flying on automatic. The other is target specific and depends on recognizing the threat by humans. There will always be a Navy because of force projection around the world and landing forces on shores.

Voice break at 8:02

@ReynardFuchsmann

4 жыл бұрын

F

@Natogoon

4 жыл бұрын

Don’t care didn’t ask

Missiles will always be cheaper than ship defenses? And hence overwhelm them anyway.

@MrKIMBO345

4 жыл бұрын

Except possibly lasers.

@paladin0654

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrKIMBO345 And rail guns.

@motmontheinternet

4 жыл бұрын

@Traiano Welcome Lasers can't be used against ships. You'd need a giant power source to make a laser powerful enough to do significant damage to a large steel ship. You cannot fit that on an attacking aircraft. Even if you did, you'd make a giant, much more fragile plane that the defending destroyer can shoot down much more easily than the aircraft can harm the destroyer. Rail guns cannot be used on tug boats in the present day, there aren't many ships capable of the electricity needed for those systems, either, a small boat is out of the question. The only systems that small systems can take advantage of are missiles, hence why all the missiles are suddenly everywhere nowadays.

@jonathanryan9946

4 жыл бұрын

@Traiano Welcome At best though, they'll only fool the Americans once. Also the Americans are just as good of thinkers, with far more naval experience in naval warfare of current living service members. It's not like the Chinese have a monopoly on thinking.

@jonathanryan9946

4 жыл бұрын

@Traiano Welcome That shows a bit of failure of imagination. The Americans dont have to win in the Pacific to beat the Chinese, they just need to deny them oil and they can easily do that in the Indian Ocean as well. Most Chinese ships, missiles and aircraft cant reach the Indian Ocean. Once China is starved for oil, then the Americans can pull the Chinese apart one piece at a time in the Pacific. Further there is very high odds the Taiwanese and Japanese will support American forces too. China might have lots of weapons, but they'll need a lot more to beat an American lead alliance. As to nullifying the Americans once. I was very careful with my wording. That's way harder today than you make it sound. They'd have to take out much of the US Pacific Navy in a first strike to even deny America a monopoly. Even then it might not be enough, as America could easily use that as an excuse for unrelenting submarine warfare on all Chinese shipping. China depends on exports of commodities and imports of resources, without it their economy would suffer a crash far worse than any military advantage they could gain with their forces of today or even a decade from now. I'm sorry but I feel you are vastly underestimating China's ability to surprise America, they simply cant hit everywhere America is and with modern communication America would have ample time in many locations to sail their ships somewhere else and get their defenses online. The target is too numerous and mostly far beyond China's range, only a few ships at any one time are they able to locate and destroy. After that the rest will know. China at best will do a mini Pearl Harbor... unless their stupid enough to use nukes. In which case America will obliterate them. America overreacts, at least compared to most other nations today, any military action on the scale you seem to be implying would be an act of war which America would gladly rise to meet. Now, America would restrain from invading the Chinese homeland to avoid nuclear war, but America would hit targets in China without impunity after they have broken them outside of China and starved them of ever resource imaginable. They likely wouldn't stop until China unconditionally surrendered. As much as I think China can bloody America's nose, long term I'm sorry to say I just dont think you fully thought this through. I literally meant, China has one free shot. If they dont kill America with it, America will rip the dragon China thinks it is one scale at a time until its left bleeding out on the floor begging for mercy. The Chinese strategy will be very good if they get a particularly stupid American Admiral. They could even sink a carrier or two, but I dont see them as being able to sink the others and they're supply lines are just too reliant upon sea routes they cant defend. As another example, China requires lots of fertilizer to produce enough food to feed its nation, they import that fertilizer... mostly from America. Put another way China seems to think it's the next Soviet Union. The issue with that line of thinking is the Soviet Union didnt have to rely upon international trade but internal trade. America is fully capable of denying China that trade. Even if say China gets magical pipelines from Russia, which in reality need a decade or more to materialize, America would simply blow up the pipe anywhere alone its many thousands of kilometers long path and repeat it as nauseam.

One defensive weapon no one talks about is the Italian Strakes system, using 76mm guns. Unlike ciws, it fires a range of shells, and shoots far further out. The planned Italian destroyer is said to have 4 X 76mm guns. It has room for 6 imho, but even 4 guns us better than the usual 1 ciws most ships have

My view on the future of navy (and based on the little knowledge i have) is mostly a mix of major and minor assets. Major assets being aircrafts carriers, destroyers and frigates for force projection, all of which would be armed with whatever new technologies appearing in the future as well as minor assets operating in swarms with small unmanned vessels and drones carrier that would protect the main fleet by taking out potential threats.

Future war starts from destroying rivals satellites guiding network, so, in my view, an airspace force is critical

@kekistanimememan170

3 жыл бұрын

ASW are a thing