Get 20% OFF + Free international shipping @manscaped with promo code THINK20 at manscaped.com/think20 ! #teammanscaped

@Keegan_Carter

9 ай бұрын

I Like how you make the sponsors goofy and I personally watch the whole thing because of it! 😂

@_Usaco

9 ай бұрын

I think manscaped is not really related to me (woman and lesbian here :D) but it's always fun to see how you're bringing it xD

@sammybronner9252

9 ай бұрын

​@@Keegan_Carter😅

@SpaceVideography

9 ай бұрын

why so funny of an add read makes me wanna buy it good job

@ezdubs9288

9 ай бұрын

YOU CHanged the name of the video from 'Why does the USA have two types of carriers' to 'From Supercarriers to Lightning Carriers'

it's disappointing that amphibious assault ships can't crawl on land. :(

@JV-pu8kx

9 ай бұрын

Give 'em time. And they will fly, too.

@mini_bunney

9 ай бұрын

holy shit imagine one of these behemoths rising from the sea and crawling towards you

@hungryweebsg

9 ай бұрын

If given enough time, they can go into space

@ACER3301

9 ай бұрын

That would be wild

@chengong388

9 ай бұрын

@@mini_bunneyyea, it would be the greatest practice target

One of the main reasons why USA has the amphibious assault ships is because some countries wont let carriers anywhere near their facilities and ports. One example of this is the Turkey Bospherous Strait. Turkey wont let aircraft carriers go through the Bospherous Strait but navies have found a loophole by changing the classification of the ship. So now America can get "aircraft carriers" through the Bospherous by just sending the assault ships. Its the same technique the Russians used with their aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. Edit - the policy that forbids aircraft carriers passage through the Bospherous Strait is called the Montreux Convention if anyone was interested.

@tygonmaster

9 ай бұрын

And similar concept to why countries like Japan can have a large standing military despite bans on military build-up: simply call it "defense." There is a lot of wordplay that goes on in military politics.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

9 ай бұрын

@@tygonmaster to be fair Japans military is TINY compared to its economy

@tygonmaster

9 ай бұрын

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The point being it should not even have what it has in a strict sense. That said, it is also planning to double the size of its military in the next few years too.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

9 ай бұрын

@@tygonmaster they should do away with the stricter limits and rearm themselves as china is doing the largest military buildup since WW2

@milkduds1001

9 ай бұрын

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 they have. Article 9 was repealed. Japan can now have a standing military.

Got a lift to Iraq on an LHD, the USS Bataan. While not as large, the LHDs are still insanely big and can carry thousands of troops and their equipment. Even rode to the beach on an LCAC. A carrier can show up and turn a small country into a parking lot, but the LHD is a clown car full of nutjobs that can come and knock on your door 😂 M.A.R.I.N.E. = MY ASS RIDES IN NAVY EQUIPMENT lol thanks for the lift shipmates!

@benn454

9 ай бұрын

Aggressive Alcoholic Athletes

@wonderfrog25

9 ай бұрын

I just know that LHD we call a support ship with troop movement like you said the devil dogs. But almost all countries would have this is their flag ship

@grizwoldphantasia5005

9 ай бұрын

The Marines are a department of the Navy. Yes, the MEN's department. Signed, a squid who thinks Marines are, well, Marines.

@cruisinguy6024

9 ай бұрын

WW2 Essex class carriers were freaking huge, and LHDs are even larger than they were.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

NOT thousands of "troops".....typically a crew of 1600 and an embarked BATTALION.....which is about 1000 or LESS "troops"

Just a few things. I spent 5 years on the USS Essex LHD-2. As far as speed goes, they are rated at 70,000 Shaft Horsepower, compared to the Nimitz class at 260,000 hp. The Nimitz is rated around 32 knots where the Wasp class is rated 22+. With that being said, the Essex heading west towards Hawaii in 1994 maintained 26 knots for 24 hours, got the wounded Sailor from a submarine and then we headed back east towards San Diego for about 20 hours at 26 knots getting within range of a CH-53E to Naval Hospital Balboa and flew him there. That's not the fastest I saw her do, but that's the fastest for the longest time I saw her sail! (and we used A LOT of fuel doing it)!

@N330AA

9 ай бұрын

Yes that's the problem with conventionally powered warships, they can go fast for a bit, but not day after day after day.

@bricefleckenstein9666

9 ай бұрын

All Navy warships are "rated" as a max of 32 knots. But I was on a "speed run" during the Refresher Training on Ranger (CV-61) just before Westpac 1979 - and the speedometer on the "in ship" TV network was showing over 39. Nuke carriers are even faster.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

I was stationed on an old Adams class DDG @ 4500 tons....we HAD 70k SHP and did 36+ kts on our speed trial coming out of overhaul in 1984....we did 25 kts all day for as long as we wanted with 2/4 class D boilers online

@Grimmwoldds

9 ай бұрын

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Was on a DDG and had a view of the stern of the carrier all too often. "I'm giving her all she's got Captain!" "So are they..." CHENG and the CO both had a sense of humor.

@jamesgreen5560

9 ай бұрын

@@bricefleckenstein9666 I did my first WESTPAC on the USS Tripoli in 1994 (its sunset cruise) when I was in the USMC. I worked in AIMD with and AT2 whose previous ship was the Ranger and he said the Ranger would kick up roster tails at flank speed. Conversely, the Tripoli felt like it was shaking itself apart at 19 knots when we were headed to Kuwait for Operation Vigilant Warrior. Was told that it had a slightly warped shaft.

Fun Fact: Japanese Helicopter Carrying Destroyer Kaga have similar length as the WW2 Japanese Carrier Kaga.

@SuperchargedSupercharged

9 ай бұрын

It does not take very much for them to operate the F35 :) Helicopter carrier LOL very cute.

@MarkerMarker27

9 ай бұрын

They just call them helicopter carriers because they are still the Japanese defense force, not aloud to play offensively since 1945' (with some exceptions). Helicopter carrier sounds less threatening than air craft carrier I guess.

@titan133760

9 ай бұрын

The JS Kaga is slightly longer

@spacecraftcarrier4135

9 ай бұрын

Japan doesn't even call them helicopter carriers but "helicopter destroyers" lol All while converting their 2 largest warships into defacto aircraft carriers

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

@@SuperchargedSupercharged they have modified 6 of our Wasp class LHDs lessening their dock areas below to give them hangers so they can station 20 F-35Bs onboard as VSTOL carriers

While there are many practical reasons for having SuperCarriers - longer missions without resupply, faster deployment and retrieval of aircraft, ability to command an entire Battlegroup in the field etc - I think theres another big factor to consider: pure intimidation. Just imagine how much destructive force the SuperCarrier could dole out over the span of two weeks (and that’s 24/7 btw) by itself. Now add 4 Destroyers and a couple nuclear submarines (that you can’t even see, but have to assume they’re there). Even the staunchest of military commanders would be hella nervous to engage such a beast.

@TheFirebird123456

9 ай бұрын

Ah i see you've discovered power projection

@pwnmeisterage

9 ай бұрын

One tactical nuke underwater would disable the whole supercarrier fleet. There are of course serious political and environmental problems with nukes. But there are nations with nuclear weapons who will not tolerate threatening power projection in their territory.

@benn454

9 ай бұрын

@@pwnmeisterage LOL no one is going to nuke a US carrier group. That would be suicide for all of humanity.

@Monarch683

9 ай бұрын

@@pwnmeisterage Nobody is suicidal enough to actually try to use a nuke in warfare today lmao.

@pwnmeisterage

9 ай бұрын

@@benn454 Imagine what might happen if USA deployed large dangerous fleets on the coasts of China. Or the reverse.

"You definitely get more bush if you've got a bigger trunk" I nearly spit out my coffee when I literally laughed out loud.

@allstarmonster1

9 ай бұрын

I'm glad you caught that, I'm like why is no one else pointing this out haha

@VomSoCo

9 ай бұрын

😂

@MrCherryJuice

Ай бұрын

Yes, especially given the a advert portion promoting the pubic hair shaver.

The LHA is like reintroducing the concept of light aircraft carriers that was in use in WW2.

@SgtBeltfed

9 ай бұрын

Not really, an LHA still carries a significant number of marines and it's main job is still deploying and supporting marines ashore. It just does it all by helicopter, MV-22 and F-35B. It can do an impersonation of a carrier, but leaves a lot of capabilities unused when it does. There's a lot an LHA can't do that a CVN can. CVL's in WWII were adjuncts for fleet carriers. CVL's added more of the same capabilities the fleet carriers already possessed, and could be more readily detached to pick up more fuel and planes to resupply the fleet carriers. CVL's could do everything a fleet carrier could, just in miniature, but really didn't bring anything else to the table.

@rcstl8815

9 ай бұрын

@@SgtBeltfed Nazi grammar here. Marines is a capitalized word, always when referring to the United States Marines.

@jamesdouglas6977

9 ай бұрын

@@SgtBeltfedThe LHD’s can be configured for the ‘Sea Control’ role by carrying just F-35s (previously AV-8s).

@SgtBeltfed

9 ай бұрын

@jamesdouglas6977 yes, but they still don't have the functionality of a full carrier. They don't have the range of aircraft available and lack the speed to operate with a battlegroup. No AEW aircraft, ect...

@jamesdouglas6977

9 ай бұрын

@@SgtBeltfed true but back in 2003 one such ship was parked just offshore and deployed Cobras and Harriers for several weeks. So while in sea control config the vessel needs to be resupplied more often it can still carry out the role of aircraft carrier. Case in point the USN’s Amphibious Assault ships with flight decks (some just have well decks for AAV’s and LCACs) are roughly the same size as many other nations aircraft carriers.

I’ve always thought of it as the WWII designations. Amphibious Assault Ships are Light/Escort Carriers with the Supercarriers being like the Fleet Carriers.

@jamessanders8895

9 ай бұрын

No, that wouldn't be accurate. The first Helo Carrier was a converted Essex class, a Fleet Carrier. The first Super Carrier (USS Midway) was also a converted Essex carrier at it's base. Additionally the Tarawa and Wasp class were designed with one squadron of AV-8 Harriers and 14 combat helos in mind (plus a small number of cargo helos). Even an Escort Carrier was expected to carry a minimum of three squadrons of fixed wing combat aircraft. By comparison, a Nimitz class is expected to carry up to 80 modern fighter jets (much larger than their WWII cousins) plus a COD, a couple of E-2s, and a small number of helos.

@bricefleckenstein9666

9 ай бұрын

@@jamessanders8895 Midway had little to do with the Essex class - it was 3 TIMES the tonnage or more, and MUCH larger.

@AA-xo9uw

9 ай бұрын

@@jamessanders8895 Incorrect. Midway CV-41 wasn't a super carrier and was the first boat of the Midway class - Midway, FDR and Coral Sea. The first "super carrier" was Forrestal.

@jamessanders8895

9 ай бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw As-built from the keel up, you are correct. As the basis for what would become the Forrestals, post conversion the Midway was considered a super carrier due to the size and capability as compared to the angle deck modified Essexes.

@jamessanders8895

9 ай бұрын

@@bricefleckenstein9666 After reviewing the information, I misspoke. My point regarding Light vs Fleet Carriers remains.

Correction: larger ships aren’t more efficient than smaller ships, they’re more efficient per ton of loaded displacement, but only I’d they have the same hull form (LHAs and Nimitz are similar but not identical). Ignoring bow and stern shape, a longer displacement hull is faster for the same power and displacement, and a narrower hull is too (these are usually related) - that’s how the Iowa-class battleships were so fast.

@petlahk4119

9 ай бұрын

I wonder if the Iowa's wouldn't have been so fast if they hadn't needed to be built with fitting through the Panama canal in mind.

@jamesleaty7308

9 ай бұрын

@@petlahk4119 That is exactly true.

@jamesleaty7308

9 ай бұрын

Imagine if Nuke power had been in use, at that time.

@ex0duzz

9 ай бұрын

More efficient at dying to a single missile/volley and losing all assets on board like jets, helicopters, ammo, fuel, and of course human lives.. it would be a nightmare against peer competitor like China or Russia. Numerous smaller ships would be a far superior strategy.

@robertkb64

8 ай бұрын

@@petlahk4119 you’re describing the Montana class - never built. The US version of the Yamato with 4 turrets and more armor, but would give up the Panama Canal.

These amphibious assault ships are about the same size of the old Essex class carriers which were the biggest during WW2.

@bricefleckenstein9666

9 ай бұрын

As far as ships in commission, true - but Midway was launched in MARCH 1945 - commissioned on September 8 1945. Could have been pressed into service sooner had we really needed her earlier, by a few months.

@VirgoShelter

9 ай бұрын

I believe the Japanese carrier "Shinano" was bigger, though she only last for around 10 days

@alancranford3398

9 ай бұрын

A minor quibble--the Essex Class of WW2 was about 36,000 tons displacement fully loaded. The Midway Class was about the same displacement as modern LHDs. The previous Yorktown Class was about 25,000 tons loaded displacement (you'll see them listed as 19,000 tons empty weight, a limit imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty). The Lexington Class (CV-2 and CV-3) were "36,000 tons standard displacement" and 48,000 tons combat loaded--Lexington and Saratoga were built on two battle cruiser hulls and exceptions to the Washington Naval Treaty. Both carriers took part in a naval exercise on Sunday, 7 February 1932 with a dawn attack on Pearl Harbor--a young Robert Heinlein was the Lexington's gunnery officer and he flew over Pearl Harbor in a torpedo bomber during that exercise.

@taiwandxt6493

9 ай бұрын

They're literally just modern day escort carriers, that's literally what they are.

@bricefleckenstein9666

9 ай бұрын

@@alancranford3398 The Lexingon class were part of the ADENDUM to the Washington Naval Treaty that regulated carriers (which were not in the Washington treaty itself AT ALL). All of the parties of that treaty were allowed to convert 2 existing (or partly constructed) BC or BB to carrier, with a higher "special exemption" on the individual limit on the tonnage. I thought RAH had retired by that time due to his tuberculosis, but I could be misremembering easily enough. The LHD class ships are a little over 40,000 tons full loaded - a bit heavier than the Essex/Ticonderoga class and LESS than the Lexington class pair. The Midway class was around *60,000* tons full loaded - MUCH higher displacement. The description of a LHD/LHA current class ship being "about the same size" as the Essex class is far more accurate than YOUR claim on it's displacement.

The LHA’s America and Tripoli are Flight 0 designs of the class. It’s already been decided it wasn’t the best idea since this had been tried before (lots online about this). Every LHA from this point forward will be Flight 1 designations which will have the well decks again.

I don’t leave a “like” nearly enough for the amount of entertainment and useful information I consistently receive from this channel. Thank you for the hard work, consistency, and depths to which you dive in order to make these videos as informative and entertaining as possible!

@NotWhatYouThink

9 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching! The comments and likes can help the video reach more people, so we very much appreciate it!

The main reason for the different type of carrier for amphibious operations came from the Guadalcanal operations in WW2. Since the US had only one or two operational carriers, they understandably pulled their carriers back after the marines landed. The Marines still needed naval support. That's when the concept of a light carrier or CVE and Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) were developed. They could support the Marines while the main naval battle group can deal with the Japanese fleet.

@SnowmanTF2

7 ай бұрын

There was also issue of jets needed more space as there capabilities improved, which was one driver of carrier sizes increasing, along with the shift to angled flight deck operations. However there was dozens of WW2 carriers the US had that still had plenty of life left, and helicopters gave them new roles with much lighter retrofits. Not only were the first generation of Amphibious Assault Ships older traditional carriers, the America class still has a strong resemblance to WW2 Essex class carriers the US developed their doctrine of them with.

I chuckled when you said LHDs opt to replenish in port rather than at sea. We did UNREPS once a week when I was deployed on an LHD and only hit 5 ports in 9 months.

@JawsFan27

9 ай бұрын

We did the same on both LHAs I've been on. Vast majority of our provisions came via RAS instead of in-port.

@GoldenAura32

9 ай бұрын

4 in 10 here.

The invasion of Afghanistan by sea was insane. Is there any other military in history that could possibly have contemplated an amphibious assault on a landlocked nation?

@JohnAlbrecht-fb4gr

9 ай бұрын

I know one. Bahahahaha

@ion8264

9 ай бұрын

@@JohnAlbrecht-fb4gr 😐

@Brucey69

9 ай бұрын

The Romans

@alexv3357

9 ай бұрын

@@JohnAlbrecht-fb4gr The vikings managed it a lot, actually, now that I think about it. Their nimble little longboats let them sail far upriver and attack inland territories with little warning

@reallyhappenings5597

9 ай бұрын

Innovative approach to losing

Please make a video about the US Cruiser. They tend to fade out from time to time, replaced by the Battleship, Aircraft Carrier, and now the Destroyer. We would love to hear about the Ticonderoga class.

@dutchlogitechclan

9 ай бұрын

Would like to see this too. Deep dive into why they're retiring it and what the solutions are to replace them etc.

@lorenzojimenezgutierrez4086

9 ай бұрын

​@dutchlogitechclan hopefully the US gets a new cruiser

@laurentitolledo1838

9 ай бұрын

an aircraft (F35s) carrying cruiser would be nice.... and ultra-low mast arsenal ship (could also be a cruiser type)

@jamessanders8895

9 ай бұрын

@@dutchlogitechclan The reason they are retiring them is fairly simple: They are exceeding their 25-30 year lifespan and maintenance is becoming a royal pain in the rear (and very expensive). The Arleigh Burkes are their functional replacement, only giving up the "flag spaces" that would allow them to be designated a cruiser as independent task force operations are not expected to happen in the foreseeable future.

@poisonshadow317

9 ай бұрын

@@lorenzojimenezgutierrez4086almost all destroyers in the world are one classification change away from being called a cruiser. People just don’t care enough to bother

There's on going rumors that the US Marine Corps and Navy are working on developing an EV-22 Osprey, not to replace the Hawkeye per se, but to provide a native AWACS capacity to Marine Expeditionary units. Further point, amphibs never go anywhere alone. A MEU has it's own strike group for defense, just like carrier battle group. Usually it'll be a mix of three different amphibs, and then their escorts, destroyers and cruisers, just like a carrier battle group. That's what it takes to move an entire MEU around so they can bring the pain. Much as a super carrier and her consorts are a lot of pain, I'd argue a MEU is scarier to have off your shores as a 'bad guy'. Air strikes suck, but they can only do so much. Eventually they'll leave. A MEU off your shore means Uncle Sam is about to put the boot in far more personally. He's gonna stick around for awhile, come to visit all intimate like.

@TheGerrok

9 ай бұрын

A MEU is a problem because 2500 Marines is enough to get the job done, or it's enough to set up shop while more are inbound.

The speed thing is usually more to do with waterline length and wave effects/wave drag rather than skin friction due to surface area. A larger ship can travel faster without trying to escape it's own bow wave. This is why the concept of 'hull speed' exists. The other factor on the side of the supercarriers with regards to speed is their immense power, being nuclear instead of conventional

0:02 " i am not saying bigger is better but... if you have a bigger trunk you get more bush" 😂😂 right on the edge with that one but yet afain its not what you think😎

I served on the LHA 5, Peleliu on multiple deployments during my time in the Marine Corps. What a magnificent Vessel.

@Death_From_Below

9 ай бұрын

I ran one of the Main Machinery Rooms on the Peleliu before I retired.

Awesome video! Always love how much information are in your video. Keep up the great work as always

The fact that we have so many aircraft carriers and don't even call them all aircraft carriers says something. (Not to mention many other militaries have none in the first place) Edit: It was a joke? Idk why yall took it so seriously 💀

@karantikoo9302

9 ай бұрын

Many militaries don't have proper (large) carries But it's easy to convert one into helicopter carrier and many do have these mini carriers

@user-ov9of1hb5q

9 ай бұрын

​@@karantikoo9302yeah, the Uk and Italy both have the "mini" version.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

different job

@Grimmwoldds

9 ай бұрын

Most nations don't have the geographical considerations which forces them to fight all their wars across the Pacific or Atlantic. Not to mention that the U.S.A. is the world's most profligate security provider in the world.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

@@Grimmwoldds that was the agreement set up at Bretton-Woods.....the US would secure the world trade routes and be the marketplace of last resort in return for a set of cooperative international laws and trade agreements to encourage coexistence among nations

The surface friction to volume ratio is an interesting point but I think hull speed is probably the more dominant reason that longer is faster

Interestingly, the 850’ long Essex Class aircraft carriers from WWII morphed into the U.S.’s first Amphibious Assault Ships. As the Forrestal Class Super Carriers entered service, the Essex Class found secondary use in this supporting roll. This explains why today’s Amphibious Assault Ships inherited the classic carrier names like Wasp, Hornet, etc.

Thank you for these videos, and the immense amount of work that goes into producing them!

Thanks for the info, was on LHA-1 the Tarawa back in the late 70's early 80's, brings back a lot of memories. Semper Fi.

Thank you for having an entertaining and informative channel that I can binge on without being drug down one road or another. Keep makin em, I'll keep watching them.

I’m currently helping build USS Bougainville LHA 8. It’s quite a job

Size doesn't matter, applys to aircraft carriers only

There are three distinct winged aircraft carrying ships, The LHA, Landing Helicopter Assault, with F35 or AV8B. The Ford class CVN and the Nimitz CVN are the other types.

Thanks for videos long enough for actual facts a lot of KZreadrs have like 6 minute videos and try to cram in knowledge you do it the right way and I thank you

Love that the us still uses the harrier. 60 years on its still a beast

@kenningtonrund282

9 ай бұрын

Works that way with alot of weapons. The Maxim is still laying down devastating fire to this day. U2s are still flying. The M1 Abrams is 44 years old right now, and is still under unmatched (though a little expensive to run).

@aimxdy8680

9 ай бұрын

@@kenningtonrund282But the current M1 is way more different than the old 1979 M1 with the 105 mm gun.

@kenningtonrund282

9 ай бұрын

@aimxdy8680 Yes, that is true with every weapons system I mentioned.

@DOI_ARTS

9 ай бұрын

Harrier 2 are modern version not the British made

@iCozzh

9 ай бұрын

@@DOI_ARTS Harrier 2 was made by hawker that is now BAE. The main subcontractor was mcdonnell douglas which has since been absorbed by Boeing. It’s still a British Aircraft, just been modified by Americans.

Good video for the most part. As a retired Marine who spent time on the Saipan, Wasp, amd Kearsarge, it doesnt give a fully accurate picture of the LHD/LHA's capabilities at sea. One good example is in regards to resupply. The majority of resupplies on all of my MEU's were at sea. Using the info the video gives, you would have to hit a port no longer than every two weeks. I can't recall too many port of calls occuring that often. I will say it's good to see those ships get the publicity they deserve. Often times you only hear about carriers.

@NotWhatYouThink

9 ай бұрын

Thanks for clarifying.

@Ezees23

9 ай бұрын

Semper Fi, DD. My first Sea Duty was on USS Wasp (LHD-1) during Desert Storm.....

@erickelly3447

9 ай бұрын

@@Ezees23 so you were on one of the first deployments on it. Pretty cool Leatherneck! I was on it for a special MAGTF to Haiti in '95. I did get to go on the Kearsarge's first MEU. My first MEU deployment was on LHA-2 Saipan. That was part of the original LHAs. I'm really surprised they used that designation again with the new ones.

Man your videos are so incredibly in depth, and informative. I can truly appreciate what you do here! 🤙🏻.

This guy is always good and very,very informative keep up the good work guy, thanks!

Man, I'd love if you did some videos on some Canadian Military stuff. Avalanche Control, SAR, historical contributions to military tech like the bear traps for landing helos. We've got some really cool stuff, and I'd love to help if you need info!

Another big advantage a longer ship has is that it can travel faster without significantly more power because of how the water flows along the side of the ship. Basically, the bow of the ship parts the water and causes a "standing" wave along the side of the ship. The faster it moves, the longer the wave. If the wave is long enough, the ship basically has to climb uphill the whole time to maintain its speed. That speed is basically a threshold where you either need to move slower to avoid the effect, or move faster to get over the "hump". A longer ship allows a much higher threshold, which is why super carriers can actually move faster than the rest of the large naval vessels (it's not just because of bigger engines, the speed limit is effectively higher for them). Speed boats are able to move faster because they are able to get up on top of the wave they create. This is what people mean by hydroplaning. Speed boats actually lift themselves mostly out of the water so they can go faster.

@ex0duzz

9 ай бұрын

I guess that's why catamarans move faster, most of the boat is out of the water and much less friction. Similar to how china built smaller catamaran style, type 22 missile frigates or bigger catamaran, type 22 fast missile boats. Whatever you want to call it as lol. They are 220 tons. So not that small but not big either. But a few of them can easily overwhelm a destroyer or even take a carrier out of commission with enough missiles hitting the right places. Also great for patrol even if taken out. That will alert the rest of the fleet and they will attack and your small quantity fleet will be destroyed. Numbers count.

@partybunnie6350

8 ай бұрын

I don't know where exactly you got that idea but it is wrong from top to bottom. The only thing effecting the speed of a ship is the bow sharpness. The sharper the bow, the easier it cuts through the water's friction. The length of the ship has absolutely no effect, you can watch Mythbuster's last video how they plow through hundreds of cars with a ship bow like thing attached to the front of truck, and the truck doesn't lose a tiny speed from impacts. The waves around the ship has no effect to the ship itself, they can only effect the ships coming from roughly at 150 and 230 degrees where the waves actually hit them. The rear ships don't get effected. The water flow also has no effect, it just flows on the side of the ship creating almost no friction. As for the big natural waves coming directly from the front, each time the ship and wave collides the ship loses speed, you can put as many weight or as sharp bow you want, you can't prevent the climbing. However once the wave passes the middle superstructure, the ship gains more speed than it lost once starts descending through the passing way. Why more speed? Because the propellers actively pushing the ship forward counteracts the wave's collision force to some extend, and as the propellers still keep pushing, the ship will gain a higher speed. Similar how cars can gain much more speed while going downwards than the speed they lost while going upwards, because the driver still holding gas. To avoid this simplistic science fact, drivers release the gas after clearing the hill so they don't overspeed.

@ex0duzz

8 ай бұрын

@@partybunnie6350 you are saying that the amount of friction generated from more of the boat touching the water doesn't have any affect on speed? Like I said, China's type 22 catamaran style is raised above water and has less friction since less surface areas is touching the water. You dont think surface area and friction matters, and only shape of the bow?

@partybunnie6350

8 ай бұрын

@@ex0duzz Why catamarans are designed that was is because how wide body they have on front. As the size of body getting bigger, it's being harder to create a sharp bow. A too sharp and thin bow on too wide upper front deck causes heavy instability issues as there is not enough floor to stabilize the deck. An unstable ship is terrible for every ships. Being too weak against big waves aside, it causes heavy nausea for crew and passangers. The catamaran logic is somewhat close to an airplane that is actually a boat. Can't quite remember it's name now but it's a military vehicle that has propellers, strong enough to levitate the ship above water but weak enough to levitate no more than 10-20 feet. Although the main reason was to make it very fast then similar weighted ships, the flying idea arised because the ship's deck was extremely wide to handle a sharp bow. Thus, the correct way to make it too fast wasn't to add more powerful engines, it was to make it literally fly.

@ex0duzz

8 ай бұрын

@@partybunnie6350 hovercraft? Yeah I know catamaran is also for wider base and stability on rough seas but friction is definitely a thing if you want more speed too. More of boat touching water means more friction means it's harder to go as fast as something with less friction.

Honest Thank You! for always displaying metric values as well 😊.

best manscape sponsoring i've seen so far haha, great video as always.

Mate your intro is top notch! :D

Totally wasn't expecting the America-class to be bigger than de Gaulle.

@thefrenchbaguette919

9 ай бұрын

Well yes and no the America class is a bit heavier 45000 tons vs 42000 tons but the the Charles de Gaulle is long and wider

I served on the USS TRIPOLI LPH 10. Landing Platform Helicopter. 600 some odd feet long. The Tilting T. Amphibious assault ship. Man the stories I could tell...

if that thumbnail didn’t specify which one was small and which one was big then I would’ve been so fucked, so thank you. it improved my life significantly

This is also why the price goes up exponentially with the length of a boat. You have to think of it like whatever the difference in length is, you are cutting the ship in half and adding that length only at the center of the ship. So adding one more foot is adding that foot to the frame that already has the greatest area. The speed difference you mentioned has more to do with length from what I remember. The longer the waterline of a ship is, the longer the natural wavelength of waves created by the hull is. If it's not a planing hull, then it can't overcome the crest of the wave that's the same length as the hull. Longer waves travel faster, so the longer the length of the ship the faster it can travel unless it can plane off and escape the wave created by the hull. I'm sure there's a better explanation somewhere.

@grizwoldphantasia5005

9 ай бұрын

You are mixing up an awful lot of things in bizarre ways The material in a ship increases by the cube, all things being equal, and calling that exponential is misleading. You are also ignoring all the electronics and most of the weapons. A carrier half the length and 1/8 the displacement would still need the same radar and radio suite, the same point defense weapons on the corners, and those are a huge part of the cost. Conversely, doubling the length multiplies the displacement by 8, but doesn't change the weapons and electronics cost by a dime. All of this ignores the structural changes necessary for a 2000 foot carrier; how those change with doubled beam dimensions is beyond my ken.

@grizwoldphantasia5005

9 ай бұрын

The airplanes carried vary by the square, so a ship twice as long, displacing 8 times as much, can only carry 4 times as many planes, but 8 times the fuel and ammo.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 could not build a keel to support the displacement load of a 2000 foot length hull with all the weight above the water...if you tried you could sneeze and break its back

(12:58) Just so you know, a ball peen hammer is typically a metalworking/machinists tool. Yeah, you could drive a nail with one, I suppose. But... 😉

@kayakingforthebirds2506

9 ай бұрын

Yeah. Things like that just make me exit the video because then I can't trust anything else they are saying.

I love your videos.. how you do you home work before.. and on this one.. also the sponsor part was great!

Well done and well said.

this whole video was a manscape ad lmao

What's bigger, a Yorktown class carrier or a Wasp class amphibious assault ship? And what differences are there between the two? In my opinion, amphibious assault ships look like the old ww2 era carriers, before the angled flight deck became a thing

@jamessanders8895

9 ай бұрын

The Wasp class - approximately 25 ft longer flight deck, several inches greater beam at the flight deck (not including the elevators or sponson addons), and nearly double the fully loaded displacement.

@Monarch683

9 ай бұрын

At full load, the Wasp class nearly double the Yorktown class in displacement, which is used to determine ship sizes, at 40,500 tons compared to the Yorktown's 25,500 tons. The two ship classes share very little in common though besides operating aircraft. The Wasp class amphibious assault ships, and their successors are intended to support and lead Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEUs) in amphibious operations. They cannot operate CATOBAR naval aircraft and are therefore limited to helicopters and STOVL operations only. LHDs, like the Wasp class, also have a well deck to support landing craft operations for use in amphibious operations. In comparison, the Yorktown class could operate CATOBAR aircraft albeit catapults were rarely used by carriers back then. Aircraft would simply take off conventionally, and perform an arrested landing for recovery. The Yorktown class and other US carriers at the time would lead fleets into battle and provide support with their aircraft. They are not as specialized as the Wasp class in terms of amphibious operations but could still provide support with their aircraft. They do not have a well deck like the LHDs.

@SnowmanTF2

7 ай бұрын

There is good reason for the resemblance, the first generation of helicopter carriers were Essex class carriers, so by the time they were replaced the doctrine had evolved based on launching from a WW2 size/style carrier. Plus sticking to Essex size allows passing through Panama Canal, which newer carriers could not do.

@nagato9645

7 ай бұрын

So a midway class carrier before the refit that added the angled flight deck wouldn't fit through the canal?

@SnowmanTF2

7 ай бұрын

@@nagato9645 Before the refit It could fit and was used by US carriers, it was after the retrofit that passing through became impossible. Which is why I brought it up as a perk of keeping around that size since that time. Granted they just added an upgraded passage/locks like five years ago, so it is easier for the America class to fit through the new locks or could even expanded the size the last couple built. Though using the original locks are still an option at the current size.

It was nice to see some film of the WASP. I have to say though, my favorite will always be the CV-7. She was destroyed in World War II. My father took a dive off her deck into the ocean when the abandon ship order came over the speakers. He spoke of his time on that version of the WASP with great fondness.

Make videos on all the other ship types/classes of the US Navy

So we have gone back full circle to building Light Carriers again lol

@animeboy-qy5sq

9 ай бұрын

We always have been. The Essex class during the Cold War we’re relegated to being light and escort carrier and during the Vietnam War the US introduced the Iwo Jima class assault ships which can launch attack helicopters to support marines.

I did not just get told by Not What You Think that size matters😭 😭 😭 😭

0:43 The way center/right guy looks at us is so funny ahah

We need twice as many "light" carriers as we have now

There is another, more important reason why the storage area of Amphibious assault ships are smaller: Crayons man. Every standard color is available in large quantities. The navy sailors onboard need them to keep the thousands of Marines calm, especially in peacetime lmao.

The LHD sounds like an Escort Carrier with extra steps

@animeboy-qy5sq

9 ай бұрын

Exactly. That’s there main purpose. Also like the escort carriers, they can performe anti submarine operations as well.

@jadeorbigoso5212

9 ай бұрын

But they have the actual size of the same Old Essex Class Aircraft Carrier

@animeboy-qy5sq

9 ай бұрын

@@jadeorbigoso5212 yeah, but the Essex class are much smaller than the Midway and the later Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class carrier. Because of the super carrier massive size, it made the Essex look small as well, hence they become escort and light carriers during the Cold War.

@TheGerrok

9 ай бұрын

Don't think of LHD's as carriers, think of them as big troop transports that also have the ability to launch aircraft to support those troops. You use these ships when you want to use the 2500 Marines inside. One thing that wasn't covered was these ships also have oversized and well resourced medical facilities to support landing operations.

Veteran that's served on both. LHA 3 (she's on permanent assignment as a reef) CVN 73 CVN 69 CCSG 8

(0:03) You made me spit out my beverage with that statement. 🤣

So do amphibious assault ships also have escort ships like the carriers or are they completely alone what if they come under attack?

@jdluntjr76226

9 ай бұрын

I believe generally they operate alone but if it a high risk area some destroyers can be attached to the group and though rare sometimes the amphibious groups operate with a carrier task force which will provide protection

@AA-xo9uw

9 ай бұрын

ARGs - Amphibious ready Groups - are made up of a LHA/LHD - a LPD - Landing Platform Dock - and a LSD - Landing Ship Dock.

You need to do a video about Broadside, one of our supporting carriers provided to us by our greatest allies, the Autobots.

Technically speaking it’s “The right tool for the job” instead of “The right tool for the right job”.

“You definitely get more bush, you have a bigger trunk” LOL!

Lol, "the right tool for the right job" and then you said like a ball peen hammer to drive in a nail. Facepalm!

@Ass_of_Amalek

9 ай бұрын

he said it because it sounds like balls and penis.

Great video. I laughed, but the joke at the end is technically wrong. The US is compensating for something with those bigger ships. Those ships are that size because the US employs overmatch to compensate for having a smaller military (in terms of personnel). I would like to hear more about why the US Navy is transitioning away from cruisers. Is it due to something the Navy changed about destroyers, or was it due to something the Navy changed about its mission? Is the destroyer taking over the cruiser's mission, or is the mission the cruiser is built for no longer necessary? Is this due to a change in technology, or a change in strategy?

@animeboy-qy5sq

9 ай бұрын

It’s due to Ticonderoga being too old. They 80s design ship, where Arleigh Burke class like the flight 3 are 2010s in terms of technology. The new DDG(X) in the future will truly replace the Ticonderoga class as they will have a command center (kinda of like the Japanese Atago class, they are destroyers, but they have a command center, which is why they are taller than the Arleigh Burke which does not have a command center)

@drake101987

9 ай бұрын

@@animeboy-qy5sq Why did they not develop a new cruiser to replace the Ticonderoga class? Why was CG (X) cancelled?

@animeboy-qy5sq

9 ай бұрын

@@drake101987 the Columbia class submarine had the money priority. It also doesn’t help that the Zummwalt class destroyers were also developing at the same time and you know how expensive that went. So the CG(X) was cancelled as well.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

1.4M in uniform....smaller military to whom?........where there is quality you get a multiplier effect....remember 140K ground pounders took out the FOURTH largest land military in the world at the time with little effort......Operation Iraqi Freedom

My brother is an officer in the Navy, he told me that to them, Marines stands for -Marines' -Asses -Ride -IN our -Equipment -Sometimes

So Wise , Thank You

Easy answer, they carry completely different types of aircraft.

finally the america class getting recognition

@Ass_of_Amalek

9 ай бұрын

which idiot named it?

Bad ass video really enjoyed it !!!

The LHA/LHD do have Navy pilots on board to operate the ships helicopter used as plane guard during flight operations.

Are we compensating for something?

@Naiuhz

9 ай бұрын

Yes, American obsession with savior complex.

@maybe8650

9 ай бұрын

The missing socialism

@Ilix42

9 ай бұрын

Yes, the drag caused by water.

@kommandantgalileo

9 ай бұрын

Yes, physics.

@Butter_Warrior99

9 ай бұрын

No, we just like big ships.

“You definitely get more bush with a bigger trunk” is the best euphemism I’ve ever hear

Amphibous Assault Ships could have a role similar to those Escort Carriers of WWII. They are slower so they can't combat with the main fleet but their air wing is enough to defend themselves, a cargo ship convoy, and they are an excelent platform to perform Anti-Submarine Warfare. The F-35B are also good to hunt any solitary warship steaming by.

Quality vs Quantity is the most understated everywhere.

It's insane how much power the US has at sea!

@gildedbear5355

9 ай бұрын

Remember, that the largest airforce in the World is the US Airforce, and the second largest is the US Navy.

0:43 third guy on the right seems confused

@rawchicken3463

9 ай бұрын

​@@name-less817u can edit your comment

I was on USS iwo Jim a LHD 7. And I can at least say it’s nice to finally have a capable air wing.

@LuisRodriguez-vk2ym

6 ай бұрын

i was on the iwo too...01-06, V4 Division

I love the ad, this is the first ad that I don’t skip

LHD/LHA are basically a modernized repurposed Essex class carrier that had their classification changed for political reasons, the LHD can travel in places that a Modern Carrier cannot simply because they are not considered aircraft carriers. There’s other reasons that are covered pretty well in this video, and yes I understand that they are not Essex carriers it’s similar in overall design.

@bricefleckenstein9666

9 ай бұрын

Wrong. They're more about supporting the amphib assault mission of the Marines. They have nothing at all like the same mission as the Essex/Ticongeroga class did. Has NOTHING to do with the politics.

@AA-xo9uw

9 ай бұрын

No cats and traps aboard a LHA/LHD.

@jeremiah._.hamman9255

9 ай бұрын

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Bruh sorry, when I said for political reasons I was referring to the fact that other nations will not allow aircraft carriers through certain waters but an LHD can access those waters. Everything in regards to military assets has political implications behind it that quite frankly I don’t give a shit about. I’m not referring to the operation and function of an LHD vs an Essex, I’m saying they follow similar design language in the physical structure and design language of the ship, they hold literally nothing else in common, sorry if I didn’t word it better. I’m going to say this just to make you mad the LHA is basically a modernized equivalent of the USS Lexington as it stands in its current configuration, you know minus the shit ton of tar they poured on the top to film a fucking movie, I almost fell through a hole in the deck because the tar had gotten soft enough from the heat of the sun over the old catapult controller that they pulled the hatch off so they could make the deck look “more historically accurate”

@andreworiez8920

2 ай бұрын

No sir...nothing political about it. LHDs and LHAs primary mission is putting US Marines on a hostile beach... They ARE NOT aircraft carriers

What’s crazy about the number of carriers the US has, is, they still need another super carrier 11 is such an awkward number that, at any given time, the missions have to be kinda swapped around to avoid crews, maintenance staff and the ships themselves from being over-worked The same issue that Britain is facing, as they need another aircraft carrier as well

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

typical for 1/3 to be deployed at any one time...the USS Ronald Reagan is permanently stationed in Yokusuka, Japan as a forward carrier of the 7th Fleet

@AA-xo9uw

9 ай бұрын

@@michaelkendall662 Reagan will be replaced by Washington in Yokosuka in 2024. Reagan will then return to Bremerton for extensive maintenance.

@michaelkendall662

9 ай бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw LOL.... NO such CV or CVN carries that name....last ship wearing that badge was a BB

4:52 redshirts is a damn bold choice!

HA! OK. That first few lines was great. And as always was delivered with such competence by the narrator that what is low brow becomes high brow.

I think today the USA use smaller carriers as STOVL which was a British invention! Many nations use these today including the British even though they also invented the steam catapult and angled deck. The two new carriers were built for cat & trap but the budget Tory government made them STOVL but a catapult system can be fitted to them when they are removed from Downing Street

@AA-xo9uw

9 ай бұрын

"which was a British invention!"(sic) Hardly

@StewartWalker-hy1eo

9 ай бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw you explain to me why they weren’t British

@StewartWalker-hy1eo

9 ай бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw come on !

@poisonshadow317

9 ай бұрын

@@StewartWalker-hy1eo Michel Wibault. He worked with the Brits after France said no.

@StewartWalker-hy1eo

9 ай бұрын

@@poisonshadow317 he played a part in it but it wasn’t all down to him as he didn’t completely come up with all because Rolls Royce invented Thrust Vectoring before anyone with the flying bedstead! Oppenheimer has just been given the glory for the Atom Bomb but no mention of the man from New Zealand who split the Atom in Manchester or anything about the Tizard Trunk

Yes, 1. The Tax payer carrier 2. The lower income Tax Payers Carrier 🇺🇲

@lordm3s447

9 ай бұрын

US has many made too many reds, terrorist and dictator enemies that it has no choice now but to build more military assets just to deter those who wants get back at them so just get used to it that your tax money also goes ti these type of things unless you want another 9/11 US meddle to much on others business that those they meddle with wants to get back at them if they show even a single weakness

Nicely done.

The length of the landing deck is actually less important than the fact that the US CVN carriers have CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery) equipment, that allows them to launch aircraft with full fuel and weapons payloads. This allows the use of the F-35C, which has a 170 nmi greater combat radius, due to larger wings and fuel tanks. That mean a supercarrier can operate over 150 nmi further away from its targets, at a safer distance from the enemy. France's Charles de Gaulle is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with CATOBAR, with a similar displacement and length to the US Amphibious Assault Ships. It is a more effective aviation platform because of CATOBAR, and the fact it isn't expected to have multiple missions beyond naval aviation. The LHA and LHD Assault Ships also need to reserve space for transporting troops into combat areas, so less space is available for fighter jet operations.

boat

@TheTrojanMaker

9 ай бұрын

boat

@moldypizza__

9 ай бұрын

@@TheTrojanMakerboat

That ad bloc was so hilarious, i just cant

In real combat that carrier will run out of everything in 2 days. Unless the "max operational capacity" is only bombing goat sheperds. Nato admitted it has not even imagined the scale and violence that would take place in the operation. Means they were never ready to fight such battles. And Russia isn't even "at war".

The Marine Corps is also owned by the Navy. They would spin it off like the Airforce was but you don't want unsupervised Marines.

They have the two different kinds of ships for right handed and left handed captains. its exactly like golf clubs.

I wish someone would make a video explaining the difference between exponential versus geometric increases. They’re very different in scale. Exponential explosively increases, and CAN rapidly approach an infinity asymptote/axis. Geometric increases are scaled in multiplications. Thus is some cost increases 4 times, like some ridiculously far over earlier estimated cost budget, it’s a GEOMETRIC increase.

Video bagus, pembahasannya juga menarik.

I served on both. USS Belleau Wood LHA-3 93-95, USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 95-97🇺🇲

"You get more bush if you have more trunk" XD🤣😂

I especially like the comparison with the Swiss Army Knife…

The F-35B isn't VTOL, it's STOVL