I've told this story before, but I know of only ONE occasion where a modern supercarrier was caught with her knickers around her ankles by a battleship. In the mid-1980s two battlegroups sailed from Norfolk Naval Station for an exercise in the Virginia Capes operating area. USS Iowa (BB 61) led a surface action group of destroyers and frigates against a carrier battle group led by USS John F Kennedy (CV 67). My ship, USS Caron (DD 970) was part of the "Iowa-ovski" group. Yep, we were "Orange Force," pretending to be a Soviet surface action group led by a Kirov heavy missile cruiser. The real world weather was primarily pea-soup fog and the surface action group took shameless advantage of that fact. An Iowa's radar return on either a Navy or commercial surface search radar appeared identical to a large merchant ship, a containership or a collier (ship with large holds loaded with coal) that run up and down the U.S. East Coast and into the ports of Hampton Roads. All of the warships taking part in the exercise on both sides carried commercial surface radars and everyone quickly blended in with the commercial traffic. Everyone shut down all of their military radars ... except for the Kennedy, which continued to use her air search sets and those needed for aircraft recovery operations. Iowa (and all the other battleships) carried the same Electronic Warfare suites that we did so Kennedy was easy to track down. By pretending to be a 20 knot containership Iowa got well within 16" gun range of the carrier. Most of the "Soviet Group" including us had lost track of the battlewagon for most of the exercise except for a brief time when one of our lookouts spotted her sliding between fog banks about 3 miles from us. The first that Kennedy knew she was near was when Iowa broke radio silence on Bridge to Bridge, Channel 16. (As best as I can remember) "Kennedy, Kennedy ... this is "Iowa-ovski." We have just launched all of our SS-N-19 missiles at you, and since we are well within 20 miles we are now pretending to be a Yankee battleship" and within a few moments a 9 gun 16" blank salvo was fired (no projectiles.) We were too far away to see the flashes through the fog but we could hear the shots. After the exercise referees stopped rolling on the decks, laughing we had to do the exercise all over again because "Orange Force" is not supposed to win in these exercises. In the 're-do' the Kennedy group cleaned our clocks.
@@robertthomas5906 definitely, same with the Sterling diesel electric HMS Gotland and her "vacation photos" of the Nimitz class carrier of the defending team of that training exercise.
@@robertthomas5906 A rumor that was circulating after was that the "Blue Force" sailors and officers were bragging beforehand about how they were going to "kick the asses" of the battleship force. Their Operations Specialists (radar techs primarily) had been looking for a formation of five smaller ships around a large surface contact. "Ivan" has never been stupid and neither were we. We broke formation, taking advantage of the fog to confuse our opponents. Iowa ran alone as did all the 'cans except two who ran 'in formation' with a merchant that just happened to be sailing up the coast to New York, giving "Blue Force" a false target formation to follow. I don't think that containership ever realized he had become a "battleship." After "resetting" overnight we were required to keep formation on the battlewagon, which was okay because the fog broke up the next day and the birdfarm romped all over us. And yes, we had a good laugh about it afterward. 😆
I was on the Forrestal in July of '67 and was on the flight deck when the fire started. I was a plane captain with VAH-10 (A-3 tankers). I was also on Forrestal for the Med. cruise after she was repaired. The plane captain on the wing of the A-3 with the fuel stick might even be me. If not, it's my dopple-ganger. With 2 cruises, I felt the Forrestal was my ship, even though I was not ship's company. I also was onboard the Saratoga in the Med. from August until Dec. 1967. In 1969 , I was onboard the Independence for carrier qualifications, just before I was discharged. I'm now 74 years old, but i still enjoy these navy videos. Thanks, Richard Kuehler
My Dad was part of Fleet Work Study Group during the 60's. He sailed on the Forrestal back to Vietnam after the fire. He took my brothers and I on her at pier 12 the day before she sailed. Mind you I was just 9 years old at the time. That was quite a ship. I couldn't step through the hatchways. The anchor chains were huge. We were on the flight deck above the "gun mounts" when all this clanging started. We watched missiles emerge and follow a merchant ship as it sailed by. Finally my youngest brother almost walked off the stern ramp. My older brother snagged him as he passed under the barrier. That's when my dad said that's enough and took us down. By he time he retired in 72, my dad had deployed on every CVA on the East coast and The Enterprise after her fire off Hawaii. He had a hell of a career starting with the Enterprise (CV6) during WWII.
The Ford Class had problems with their Ammo elevators which if I'm correct they finally solved the problem. As always I enjoy your informative videos and look forward to them daily. Living twenty minutes drive from the only shipyard that can build carries in the US and the Supercarriers of today and a bit longer of a drive to where BB-64 is moored. I wish they would follow your lead and produce videos on a daily basis or at least a couple a month. This could help them in the long run for more funding. Again Thank you for what you and your crew do.
The Ford is scheduled to make her maiden deployment (finally) in 2022. John F Kennedy (CVN 79) is afloat and fitting out, preparing for her builder's trials. The hull of Enterprise (CVN 80) is being assembled in drydock.
USS Ford. Launched 2013, Commissioned 2017. First Deployment 2023-2024. 10 years from launch to be actually useful. They just finally fixed the last weapon elevator. Carbon fiber toilets are still clogging though. Imagine if this thing needs to be repaired from battle damage.
My father served two tours on the Forrestal. He served on board during the fire off of Vietnam and then served on board from 1988 until he retired in early 1992. I remember during Desert Storm that orders were cut but not executed twice for the Forrestal to set sail for the Middle East. I was already over there in Saudi Arabia serving in the Army.
I was able to get a waterside comparison of both the Battleship Iowa and Forrestal when they were tied up next to each other in Middletown, Rhode Island in 1999 from my 18'-0" Starcraft. Both ships were most impressive to behold from that vantage point. I had seen both ships previously at the Inactive Ship Facility in Philadelphia, but never side by side. In regards to your question as to future battle groups I believe the Navy does have a need for a ship with larger more capable gunfire capacity for many reasons not only shore bombardment but fleet defense. I believe the extremely expensive Zumwalt class destroyers do not have this capability nor does the Burke class destroyers. For what it has cost the Navy for the three Zumwalt's we could have kept all four Iowa's in service for at least ten years.
And that is before you get into the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain the Zumwalt class where it is built like an Apple Computer, where you have to have licensed contractors do even routine maintenance on proprietary equipment that Navy personnel are not allowed to be trained to repair. The maintenance on them is more than triple what was projected. They are the worst case of greedy defense contracting I know of.
I served on Forrestal from 1988 to 1990 and recall a NATO exercise in the North Sea vs the newly commissioned Theodore Roosevelt. We still had Intruders and Corsairs and they had F/A-18A hornets and we still managed to “sink” and “splash” them during heavy weather. FID was coming off a 3 ocean deployment and had been operating in support of Earnest Will outside the Persian Gulf and the Teddy was still wet behind the ears. As for the usability of the battleship, IMO there would be no naval aviation without the battleship USS Pennsylvania. Indeed, retrofitting the Iowas with Tomahawk launchers showed how adaptable a large surface combatant could be. If anything I could see supercarriers becoming less relevant as drones become more capable and small enough to be launched from anything with even a small flight deck like a tin can. Then there’s how the technology in gunnery is advancing. I know that the rail gun project is stalled but I could definitely envision a type of battleship in the future with improved range by using that sort of technology. PS: those who call the FID by derogatory names don’t understand how awesome the shop truly was and how much it paved the way by being the first super carrier.
I remember watching a film on how NOT to fight a shipboard fire on the Forrestal while in Boot camp in 1976. But even after all those bombs going off, she was still able to operate. Do that with a BB.
That film was still an instructional video every time I went through the advanced shipboard fire school (Farrier Firefighting School) in Norfolk VA during my time at sea. The school is named for the Chief who tried very hard to save a number of aircrew trapped behind that fire while armed with nothing more than a portable fire extinguisher.
If I remember the big problem with that fire was that the fire fighting crew were killed/wounded while fighting the fire when one of the bombs went off, so many of the guys fighting it afterward weren't trained firefighters, which caused problems. I think the Navy changed its firefighting training and regs after that.
New Jersey was the culmination of everything modern Navies learned during about a century of building and operating battleships. The Forestall was the begging of the next 100 years of Super Carrier construction and operations. You can’t compare the two ships because they were built for different eras of Naval Warfare. Honor them both, just like you did.
It's like the comparison of the M16/M4 in military service to say the 6.8mm caseless weapons being tested now, the M16 has been constantly improved for over 60 years and the other is brand new.
The late Senator John McCain served on the Forrestal during the Vietnam war. He was the pilot of the plane hit by the friendly fire missile while both were sitting on the deck of the Forrestal.
I am not sure if we should have massive gun platforms such as battleships in the current navy, but what concerns me is we have lost the industry and knowledge to build them if we ever do need them again.
Which is why you don't build a old school battleship you build a new super Armoured destroyer that has a massive vls system in 3 sections and 8-10inch guns, probably about 4 barrels per turret and 3-4 turrets a ship. But we would build a massive arliegh Burke with armour, as I imagine it anyway.
@@IvorMektin1701 there's lots of knowledge in long range naval gunnery that's in danger of being lost simply because it was cheaper and easier to build a "smart" missile
The Marines keep asking for naval gunfire support, but with modern antiship missiles, armour is pointless, and with modern aircraft, heavy guns are pointless. The only argument for guns back in the day was that the fast movers dropping bombs weren't accurate, but with modern guided munitions ... there's really no place for naval guns on today's battlefield.
@Craig Prestininzi The technology to build battleships is still available, but on a much smaller scale: the state of the art armour of tanks like the Abrams and Challenger 1 with the sophisticated Chobham armour. This type of armour is much better than the advanced but pureley steel armour of the Iowa class. If a heavy armoured ship is needed in the future, they would probably would a Aleigh Burke class or Ticonderoga class with this tank armour.
@Delivery McGee: Modern antiship missiles will have a difficult job to penetrate the new type of Chobham armour which is used in tanks like Abrams and Challenger 2 I guess? Especially when you build a Ticonderoga cruiser for example with this Chobham armour with a thickness of the old battleship steel thickness.
I have an uncle who served aboard _Forrestal_ in the late '70s. I was in early grade school at the time, and he used to send me stuff from his travels now and then--the three I remember are one of those blue ballcaps with the scrambled eggs on the bill, a dixiecup hat (do they still wear those?), and a neat little tooled leather pouch full of Italian coins. The hats got lost somewhere along the way in the last 40+ years, but I still have the pouch of 1970s Italian change in my desk drawer.
If a Naval aircraft lands and goes right back off the angle and had the hook up it's called a Touch and Go (same thing if on a runway on land. However, if a Naval aircraft lands with the hook down and goes right back off the angle (having missed all wires), it's called a Bolter. The LSO will also call "bolter, bolter" over the radio to make sure the embarrassed Aviator in the aircraft is aware of the situation. Touch and Goes are common in the training command as the first few passes for a student aviator in type, but after that, they want "Traps" which is when the aircraft catches the wire.
A great video but not much of a debate. The Carrier would win hands down. I love your channel and I was lucky to see some of the Battleships in use during the 80s while serving on board.......the USS Constellation CV-64. There's a reason that they don't make Battleships anymore just as there are reasons that they'll never do away with the Carriers. As far as I'm concerned the 2 coolest ships ever produced were the Battleships and the Carriers so it was cool seeing this comparison.
@@k9foru2 "if it could somehow get into gun range" is a very big "if". During the heyday of Battleships they have never sunk a Carrier. There was an incident where 2 German Battlecruisers sunk a British Carrier in 1940. Battlecruisers are very similar to Battleships so I'm going to give you that one just to make you happy. During WW2 something like 23 Battleships from various countries were sunk by the planes from Carriers, including 6 of our own Battleships which were sunk at Pearl Harbor. The Forrestal would have something like 85 aircraft, each one armed and out looking for the New Jersey. With the aid of air refueling the Carrier could easily be hundreds of miles away from the 24 mile limit of the New Jersey's guns. The New Jersey would have to do some major sneaking up to beat those odds. You could claim victory by the fact that the USS New Jersey is still around whereas the USS Forrestal was scrapped.
@@michaeldolny2919 I agree but if you somehow magically caught the carrier away from the task group and with your opening salvo smash the flight deck you stand a chance but it would require borderline criminal negligence but just 1v1 I think the iowas have a chance if you can magically get in gun range
@@michaeldolny2919 The Brit carrier only carried a few swordfish and I think weather was kind of crappy so they couldn't launch unlikely they would have gotten both of them anyway son not a great example but very true I think that was Salmon and Gluckstein(Scharnhorst and Gneisanau) spelling maybe wrong The Brit carrier was either courageous or glorious can't remember might have even been one of the earlier ones.
I love battleships (obviously or I wouldn’t be here). To me each serves its purpose at the time it was introduced into service - sometimes strategic deterrence and sometimes delivery of ordinance. Both platforms performed their rolls to perfection. Unfortunately for the battleship, the age of missiles became the rage and lobbing heavy projectiles was reserved for the “Volkswagens” launched from catapults. Until we perfect killing each other from space the super carrier might be safe. Long live the US Navy and many varied missions around the globe.
Great recount of Cold War and post WWII history. A lot of people don't know about the remodeling of the Essex and Midway classes. They don't know about the "Revolt of the Admirals" and the intra-service rivalries and government infighting with the National Security Act of 1947 and creation of the USAF and DoD.
Excellent! I learned quite a bit from this video today. P.S. James V. Forrestal is probably my favorite Secretary of Defense, and I rate him right alongside Frank Knox as my favorite Secretaries of the Navy. Thank you very much for a superb video! I'll be watching this one again from time to time. Andy McKane
@@johnmcelwain5884You dont use the CIWS to shoot down the shell. You use Surface to Air missiles. Also, these shells are not accurate by today's standards. The opposing ship doesn't have to jam them, they can jam the Battleships radar which is used to aim their guns, and then some hard maneuvering can render incoming shells not yet intercepted useless.
8:13 The first country to build CV from start is Japan. the earlier CVs were converted ships that began with something else. even Battlecruisers became carriers with main big guns retained!!!!!
I had the honor to serve on the Forrestal's sister, Saratoga. I remember steaming over for what became Desert Shield/Storm with Wisconsin. She was an impressive ship and looked so graceful steaming with us.
My uncle served on this ship and he told me about his run in with George down in the gym. He had a 50lb weight thrown at him that just barely missed and put a pretty decent sized dent in the wall.
1:45 The Royal Navy describe the Queen Elizabeth class as supercarriers. Not surprisingly, as they are indeed the same in deck and hangar space as a Forrestal and and not far off a Nimitz. Under full war load QE class displaces low to mid 80,000 tonnes and can operate 72 F35B and eight helicopters. The QE’s 24hr max sortie rate is higher than a Nimitz.
Excellent video. I agree that Forrestal was a better national expenditure. However within their types, the Iowa/New Jersey was better, as many things needed to be worked out, and many improvements needed to be made on the super carriers, whereas the Iowas were a mature technology.
I read somewhere that for shore and limited inland bombardment, New Jersey is quite compedetive, with a carrier air strike, over a fixed and limited durration.
I enjoyed this video. The Iowas are my favorite battleships, and the Forrestals are my one of my favorite carriers. Top spot would have to go to the Essex class (as built) or maybe one of the British carriers from late WW2. The Forrestals are easily my favorite supercarriers though. Personally I think the Midway with all the crazy add on pieces to the deck or the later supers with island further aft look ridiculous and more than a little un balanced.
I think SAG would be centered around a 10k ton cruiser platform. Well, kind of like the zumwalts with a gun except that it should work and not cost $800k per round. No reason for stealth or some of the ridiculous features on zumwalt.
Just a note on the elevators the Navy wanted a design that each elevator could feed aircraft to each catapult. The changes after the Forestal class the two elevators forward of island could feed the forward catapults the elevator aft of the island and on the port side feed aircraft to the waist catapults. The unflattering nickname given to the Forestal was USS Forest fire. SLEP Service Life Extension Program. Zumwalt vs Iowa
Some other ideas for unconventional comparison videos: 1. The Sacramento class AOEs that used the left over Iowa class powerplants. 2. The Algol class transports that are the fasted commercial ships ever built and are later purchased by the USN. They are longer but otherwise similar to Iowas in performance and size. 3. The Seawise Giant, the largest ship ever built. 4. The EEE class and similar container ships that are perhaps the most important ships around right now. The first two are military ships, the latter two just really big ships that it might be fun to compare with New Jersey. None are combat capable, however, so they wouldn't be much of a contest in a fight. :)
Random fact: When I served on the Independence in 88-92, the DC plates still had 5 inch guns on them, even though they were actually removed decades earlier. It made me wonder how accurate those drawings were.
I remember seeing the USS Iowa (BB-61), USS Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Saratoga (CV-60) at Pier two Newport, Naval Station, RI. The Forrestal and Saratoga made the Iowa look tiny.
You have noted this before... The Battleship allows you to park, in plain sight, a massive display of American power. But the aircraft carrier--almost by definition--has to remain "over the horizon." You're not going to put a "Supercarrier" 12 miles off the coast of Lebanon; but you can put a battleship right there to be seen. On the other hand, the prospect of an aircraft carrier operating out of your reach that can suddenly put precision ordinance on your head without a damn thing you can do about it and without warning, is a HUGE deterrent. But it's an invisible threat, a strategic threat. The Battleship is a visible threat, a tactical threat. Remember, Iraqi troops surrendered to a spotting drone from the Wisconsin; they didn't do that to the A-6's operating off the carriers off the coast. So, strategically the carriers are a more potent issue, but tactically the battleships were a major threat. Ideally, it'd be nice to have BOTH...a carrier force AND a (small) number of "Big Gun", heavily armored Battleships. Each would carry it's own value and role. (Sadly, we're not likely to ever see another "Big Gun" warship that you can park in a hostile waters and whose hulking presence alone deters someone from trying to hurt it.)
development of battleship guns and cruiser guns stopped with the salem iowa and the alaska class 8 12 and 16 but there was someone called Gerald Bull he developed long range guns and smart weapons and his company still made artillery systems with incredible range with the advancement of those guns a gun ship with long range guns (over 100 miles) is possible with a large caliber weapon does not half to be a 16 inch gun but a rapid fire long range gun say 8 to 14 inch would be useful
Served on her sister ship CV-60 Saratoga in attack squadron VA-37. Super carrier over a battleship any day!! the amount of fire power a carrier airwing can bring to the table is unreal. We nicknamed the Forrestal forever fire. And our name was the suck-in 60 from dixie, as our home port was Mayport Florida
@@madpuppie59 Well that would be easy to do, Mayport was a shallow bay port her draft with most of her aircraft off was 33-34 feet her berth was around 38 feet deep. The time she opened a huge crack in her hull on a speed run during carrier qual’s by time she made in back to mayport she had a draft of 41 feet Took every sea tug in port to push her through the mud to get us even close to the pier. We ended up with I believe, two flat barges between us and our pier and dropped the gangway onto the barges. Ya good times on the sixty from dixie.
@@madpuppie59They routinely did this with Forrestal as well - and I'd wager that they did it with the JFK (CV-67) who was the last carrier to be based in Mayport. We always went to sea at high tide.
Best investment in a warship by my nation? CVN-65 USS Enterprise the first, fastest and finest nuclear aircraft carrier. Mobile Chernobyl, we miss you.
To me it makes no sense at all to do a comparison between a battleship and a carrier that was built about 15 years later. One can ask what ship is more significant or prestigious, but the rest of the versus thing is absurd. Anyway - the vid was interesting regarding to Forrestal´s life career. Thanks a lot.
I, for one, believe there is still a use for a battleship. What I wonder is if a battle plan could have been put into place where a couple of Iowa Class Battleships could successfully attack an aircraft carrier task group? Obviously absorbing hits from a broadside or two of 16 inch AP shells, would do some serious damage. For one thing, the flight deck could be made unusable in a short period of time. I always wondered, after Midway, why the Japanese didn't utilize their surface ships to go after the carriers. The surface ships were fresh and had all their weapons ready and the carriers had used up a lot of their ammunition during the attacks. As I said, I was just wondering.
Japan tried that at the very of the end of the battle of Midway they moved in their Battleships and other Surface ships. But at that point in time Admiral Spruance was already in the process of Withdrawing
In modern sea combat the carrier has the advantages of offensive and defensive reach and firepower. Her surveillance aircraft can track any surface ship except the most heavily stealthed and even those can be tracked by the attack submarine in company with the carrier. I know of only one instance post 1950 where a battleship got the better of a carrier, I posted that story here earlier and it was an instance not likely to ever be duplicated. Right after the Battle of Midway Admiral Yamamoto was advised to attempt to bring the American carrier (they still thought they were only facing one after USS Yorktown was reported on fire and sinking) to battle with his Center Force of battleships built around IJN Yamato, but decided not to risk those ships within reach of shore-based aircraft operating from Midway and whatever aircraft the U.S. still had aboard. Admiral Spruance was unwilling to risk his unarmored carriers against the Center Force, so once he had recovered the survivors from Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet's airgroups he turned east, away from the Japanese force. There weren't enough aircraft still flyable aboard Enterprise and Hornet to make up a full carrier wing, at least until a number of damaged planes had been repaired after a day or so.
Since then it became a norm that CV should be bigger than any ships with big guns. and since the the trends for gun mounted warships will be smaller and less armored. even in the face of irregular warfare where non-state aggressors resorted on suicide bombing ships that showed how Burkes and Ticoes are unsuited for such warfare, someome even considered reintroducing external armor for these smaller armed ships.
The question to ask is could an Iowa class have survived a fire such as the Forestfire er Forrestal had and would it cause it to never be used in combat again.
Note China is currently as of this video, confirmed to be building their first actual super carrier. Full catapult and arrester system like US super carriers and full size.
I 100% support reactivating at least 2 of the Iowa's as the center of a battle group. There is still a need for such projection of power in the world. For example: anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden or escorting takers in the Persian Gulf. In addition to weapons, the other resources they bring to the table would be invaluable (machine shops, hospital beds, etc).
Were there significant morale issues or mutinies on either ships? During Viet Nam there were very significant mutinies on carriers. What about New Jersey? In terms of carrier enhancement I would assume that service on a CV would be better than New Jersey when they were both operational. Did either ship have significant reserve officers aboard during Viet Nam?
Well the concept of a carrier task force is still dominant but subjected to challenge due to anti-ship ballistic missile, CVNs are significantly large for that. The navy is experimenting the concept of a surface strike group consisted of DDGs and other smaller combatants.
That was actually the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) which is an "improved" Forrestal design (port side elevator shifted aft out of the recovery area and superstructure shifted after to place two deck edge elevators forward) and was commissioned 8 years later. Forrestal was stricken in 1992 in Philadelphia, towed up to Rhode Island several years later and ultimately sold for a penny to the scrappers down in Brownsville, TX where FID met its fate in 2014. 38 years in service, almost 22 years in mothballs. It lived to be 59 years old. EDIT: the Kitty Hawk herself is on its way around the horn right now to meet its fate in Brownsville.
I truly believe a handful of battleships are needed in the navy. A warrior who only knows one side is vulnerable to attack from the others. Japanese proverb (I think)
I'm doubtful that we could build a modern equivalent of a battleship, or afford it. Since it would likely be armed with rail guns, how thick would the armor have to be to stop or deflect shots from a rail gun? I know that it would have to be a LOT thicker than the New Jersey's is.
I think we're already moving in that direction Drones have been a game changer in land warfare so we can expect the same at sea Maybe we'll see drone carriers of about the same displacement of the former British Invincible?
Well, for conditions after 1940 (and currently)_I can't see any real doubt that large-deck carriers are a better buy for purposes of national defense than BBs. And I also say - I don't like that conclusion. I find BBs more attractive, charismatic ships (and thinking of that - I do wish we'd built a at least a couple of the battle-cruisers as such). Well, I wish for a lot of things, including steam locomotives in daily service and a passenger train network like the one i grew up with in the later 1940s and through the 1950s.
In your thoughts how well would an Iowa Class survive hits by modern Missiles and weaponry both surface ship or Air Plane delivered . The detractors say the modern thin skinned ships will not survive well. That it would be better to be armored like an Iowa Class. But I am thinking that with the weapons of today even an Iowa Class would not survive much better. Especially if the enemy throws a tactical nuclear device at it which is entirely possible. Thoughts?
The pilot of the plane that fired that missile and started that fire was John McCain. He also crashed five airplanes in separate incident. Helps to have a father and grandfather who were Navy Admiral
@@kevinbarry71 I only asked for a source and petty insults your only answer? Where does it say he fired the rocket? I have no issue with you, why are you being so aggressive?
@@boraeananaren in your previous response you said I blamed him for that incident. I did not. If you cannot read and comprehend simple statements, then expect to be corrected. If that's your idea of me being aggressive, good for you. As for his plane firing that rocket, that is a matter of record,
@@kevinbarry71 What is there to misunderstand about "The pilot of the plane that fired that missile and started that fire was John McCain." Your words. McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was parked on the deck edge across the flight deck from the F-4 Phantom that the missile was launched from. Nor did the fire start because McCain 'Wet Started' his engine (the second most popular story about how the fire started.) These stories about McCain starting the fires were started by his political enemies AFTER he became a U.S. Senator and gained traction after he became a candidate for President.
I've told this story before, but I know of only ONE occasion where a modern supercarrier was caught with her knickers around her ankles by a battleship. In the mid-1980s two battlegroups sailed from Norfolk Naval Station for an exercise in the Virginia Capes operating area. USS Iowa (BB 61) led a surface action group of destroyers and frigates against a carrier battle group led by USS John F Kennedy (CV 67). My ship, USS Caron (DD 970) was part of the "Iowa-ovski" group. Yep, we were "Orange Force," pretending to be a Soviet surface action group led by a Kirov heavy missile cruiser.
The real world weather was primarily pea-soup fog and the surface action group took shameless advantage of that fact. An Iowa's radar return on either a Navy or commercial surface search radar appeared identical to a large merchant ship, a containership or a collier (ship with large holds loaded with coal) that run up and down the U.S. East Coast and into the ports of Hampton Roads. All of the warships taking part in the exercise on both sides carried commercial surface radars and everyone quickly blended in with the commercial traffic. Everyone shut down all of their military radars ... except for the Kennedy, which continued to use her air search sets and those needed for aircraft recovery operations.
Iowa (and all the other battleships) carried the same Electronic Warfare suites that we did so Kennedy was easy to track down. By pretending to be a 20 knot containership Iowa got well within 16" gun range of the carrier. Most of the "Soviet Group" including us had lost track of the battlewagon for most of the exercise except for a brief time when one of our lookouts spotted her sliding between fog banks about 3 miles from us.
The first that Kennedy knew she was near was when Iowa broke radio silence on Bridge to Bridge, Channel 16. (As best as I can remember) "Kennedy, Kennedy ... this is "Iowa-ovski." We have just launched all of our SS-N-19 missiles at you, and since we are well within 20 miles we are now pretending to be a Yankee battleship" and within a few moments a 9 gun 16" blank salvo was fired (no projectiles.) We were too far away to see the flashes through the fog but we could hear the shots.
After the exercise referees stopped rolling on the decks, laughing we had to do the exercise all over again because "Orange Force" is not supposed to win in these exercises. In the 're-do' the Kennedy group cleaned our clocks.
Tbf in war, you need to exploit every advantage you have even if its shameless.
In a redo they'd better perform. I bet they still poke fun about that.
@@robertthomas5906 definitely, same with the Sterling diesel electric HMS Gotland and her "vacation photos" of the Nimitz class carrier of the defending team of that training exercise.
@@robertthomas5906 A rumor that was circulating after was that the "Blue Force" sailors and officers were bragging beforehand about how they were going to "kick the asses" of the battleship force. Their Operations Specialists (radar techs primarily) had been looking for a formation of five smaller ships around a large surface contact.
"Ivan" has never been stupid and neither were we. We broke formation, taking advantage of the fog to confuse our opponents. Iowa ran alone as did all the 'cans except two who ran 'in formation' with a merchant that just happened to be sailing up the coast to New York, giving "Blue Force" a false target formation to follow. I don't think that containership ever realized he had become a "battleship."
After "resetting" overnight we were required to keep formation on the battlewagon, which was okay because the fog broke up the next day and the birdfarm romped all over us.
And yes, we had a good laugh about it afterward. 😆
@@SonsOfLorgar OMG, I bet that captain was red-faced. I'm aware of that one. Great exercise. Now they can develop a defense for it.
I was on the Forrestal in July of '67 and was on the flight deck when the fire started. I was a plane captain with VAH-10 (A-3 tankers). I was also on Forrestal for the Med. cruise after she was repaired. The plane captain on the wing of the A-3 with the fuel stick might even be me. If not, it's my dopple-ganger. With 2 cruises, I felt the Forrestal was my ship, even though I was not ship's company. I also was onboard the Saratoga in the Med. from August until Dec. 1967. In 1969 , I was onboard the Independence for carrier qualifications, just before I was discharged. I'm now 74 years old, but i still enjoy these navy videos. Thanks, Richard Kuehler
I was on the Forrestal in 1970-71 and Independence in 1971-72 with VA-66. A-4Cs and A-7Es
I was in the Coast Guard. If the ship was less than 40 years old, we thought it was new.
Rust is orange 🤓
Sad but funny
Munro was 40 years old when I was aboard, Sedge was 50.
My Dad was part of Fleet Work Study Group during the 60's. He sailed on the Forrestal back to Vietnam after the fire. He took my brothers and I on her at pier 12 the day before she sailed. Mind you I was just 9 years old at the time. That was quite a ship. I couldn't step through the hatchways. The anchor chains were huge. We were on the flight deck above the "gun mounts" when all this clanging started. We watched missiles emerge and follow a merchant ship as it sailed by. Finally my youngest brother almost walked off the stern ramp. My older brother snagged him as he passed under the barrier. That's when my dad said that's enough and took us down.
By he time he retired in 72, my dad had deployed on every CVA on the East coast and The Enterprise after her fire off Hawaii. He had a hell of a career starting with the Enterprise (CV6) during WWII.
The Ford Class had problems with their Ammo elevators which if I'm correct they finally solved the problem. As always I enjoy your informative videos and look forward to them daily. Living twenty minutes drive from the only shipyard that can build carries in the US and the Supercarriers of today and a bit longer of a drive to where BB-64 is moored. I wish they would follow your lead and produce videos on a daily basis or at least a couple a month. This could help them in the long run for more funding. Again Thank you for what you and your crew do.
I know you want m ore content from BB-64, but NNS posts great videos and pictures on their social media.
The Ford is scheduled to make her maiden deployment (finally) in 2022. John F Kennedy (CVN 79) is afloat and fitting out, preparing for her builder's trials. The hull of Enterprise (CVN 80) is being assembled in drydock.
USS Ford. Launched 2013, Commissioned 2017. First Deployment 2023-2024. 10 years from launch to be actually useful. They just finally fixed the last weapon elevator. Carbon fiber toilets are still clogging though. Imagine if this thing needs to be repaired from battle damage.
My father served two tours on the Forrestal. He served on board during the fire off of Vietnam and then served on board from 1988 until he retired in early 1992. I remember during Desert Storm that orders were cut but not executed twice for the Forrestal to set sail for the Middle East. I was already over there in Saudi Arabia serving in the Army.
fun fact, on the nose of the c-130 that landed on the forrestal, was painted "look ma. no hook!"
I was able to get a waterside comparison of both the Battleship Iowa and Forrestal when they were tied up next to each other in Middletown, Rhode Island in 1999 from my 18'-0" Starcraft. Both ships were most impressive to behold from that vantage point. I had seen both ships previously at the Inactive Ship Facility in Philadelphia, but never side by side. In regards to your question as to future battle groups I believe the Navy does have a need for a ship with larger more capable gunfire capacity for many reasons not only shore bombardment but fleet defense. I believe the extremely expensive Zumwalt class destroyers do not have this capability nor does the Burke class destroyers. For what it has cost the Navy for the three Zumwalt's we could have kept all four Iowa's in service for at least ten years.
And that is before you get into the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain the Zumwalt class where it is built like an Apple Computer, where you have to have licensed contractors do even routine maintenance on proprietary equipment that Navy personnel are not allowed to be trained to repair. The maintenance on them is more than triple what was projected. They are the worst case of greedy defense contracting I know of.
@@EarthenDam Plus, their guns are useless because the Navy cancelled the shells when the price rose to about $800K a pop.
Excellent lecture and footage. This is one of your best. Happy Holidays Ryan, Libby, staff, and your families. I really enjoy your channel.
I saw Forrestal being towed into Brownsville several years ago to the breakers. A sad site for a great ship.
I served on Forrestal from 1988 to 1990 and recall a NATO exercise in the North Sea vs the newly commissioned Theodore Roosevelt. We still had Intruders and Corsairs and they had F/A-18A hornets and we still managed to “sink” and “splash” them during heavy weather. FID was coming off a 3 ocean deployment and had been operating in support of Earnest Will outside the Persian Gulf and the Teddy was still wet behind the ears.
As for the usability of the battleship, IMO there would be no naval aviation without the battleship USS Pennsylvania. Indeed, retrofitting the Iowas with Tomahawk launchers showed how adaptable a large surface combatant could be. If anything I could see supercarriers becoming less relevant as drones become more capable and small enough to be launched from anything with even a small flight deck like a tin can. Then there’s how the technology in gunnery is advancing. I know that the rail gun project is stalled but I could definitely envision a type of battleship in the future with improved range by using that sort of technology.
PS: those who call the FID by derogatory names don’t understand how awesome the shop truly was and how much it paved the way by being the first super carrier.
I was there, 87-91 weapons department both mags and flight deck ordnance.
Thanks for the video. Well done. Also, thank you to my family for donating to get the video made.
I remember watching a film on how NOT to fight a shipboard fire on the Forrestal while in Boot camp in 1976. But even after all those bombs going off, she was still able to operate. Do that with a BB.
That film was still an instructional video every time I went through the advanced shipboard fire school (Farrier Firefighting School) in Norfolk VA during my time at sea. The school is named for the Chief who tried very hard to save a number of aircrew trapped behind that fire while armed with nothing more than a portable fire extinguisher.
@@robertf3479 i still remember that film from boot camp over 30yrs ago. watching the chief run into the fire with only a pkp bottle.
@@leftyo9589 That seems to have stuck in a lot of peoples minds. I remember that too.
The bombs were on the deck. So iowa class would be fine
If I remember the big problem with that fire was that the fire fighting crew were killed/wounded while fighting the fire when one of the bombs went off, so many of the guys fighting it afterward weren't trained firefighters, which caused problems. I think the Navy changed its firefighting training and regs after that.
New Jersey was the culmination of everything modern Navies learned during about a century of building and operating battleships. The Forestall was the begging of the next 100 years of Super Carrier construction and operations. You can’t compare the two ships because they were built for different eras of Naval Warfare. Honor them both, just like you did.
It's like the comparison of the M16/M4 in military service to say the 6.8mm caseless weapons being tested now, the M16 has been constantly improved for over 60 years and the other is brand new.
You just compared them.
Actually the proposed Montana is. which built out of pressures from japan which built Yamato class (The largest dreadnoughts ever built by anyone).
The late Senator John McCain served on the Forrestal during the Vietnam war. He was the pilot of the plane hit by the friendly fire missile while both were sitting on the deck of the Forrestal.
I served on the Forrestal in 1970-71 with VA-66 and luckily missed those fires. I was so disappointed when they failed to save it.
I am not sure if we should have massive gun platforms such as battleships in the current navy, but what concerns me is we have lost the industry and knowledge to build them if we ever do need them again.
Which is why you don't build a old school battleship you build a new super Armoured destroyer that has a massive vls system in 3 sections and 8-10inch guns, probably about 4 barrels per turret and 3-4 turrets a ship. But we would build a massive arliegh Burke with armour, as I imagine it anyway.
@@IvorMektin1701 there's lots of knowledge in long range naval gunnery that's in danger of being lost simply because it was cheaper and easier to build a "smart" missile
The Marines keep asking for naval gunfire support, but with modern antiship missiles, armour is pointless, and with modern aircraft, heavy guns are pointless. The only argument for guns back in the day was that the fast movers dropping bombs weren't accurate, but with modern guided munitions ... there's really no place for naval guns on today's battlefield.
@Craig Prestininzi The technology to build battleships is still available, but on a much smaller scale: the state of the art armour of tanks like the Abrams and Challenger 1 with the sophisticated Chobham armour. This type of armour is much better than the advanced but pureley steel armour of the Iowa class. If a heavy armoured ship is needed in the future, they would probably would a Aleigh Burke class or Ticonderoga class with this tank armour.
@Delivery McGee: Modern antiship missiles will have a difficult job to penetrate the new type of Chobham armour which is used in tanks like Abrams and Challenger 2 I guess? Especially when you build a Ticonderoga cruiser for example with this Chobham armour with a thickness of the old battleship steel thickness.
I have an uncle who served aboard _Forrestal_ in the late '70s. I was in early grade school at the time, and he used to send me stuff from his travels now and then--the three I remember are one of those blue ballcaps with the scrambled eggs on the bill, a dixiecup hat (do they still wear those?), and a neat little tooled leather pouch full of Italian coins. The hats got lost somewhere along the way in the last 40+ years, but I still have the pouch of 1970s Italian change in my desk drawer.
If a Naval aircraft lands and goes right back off the angle and had the hook up it's called a Touch and Go (same thing if on a runway on land. However, if a Naval aircraft lands with the hook down and goes right back off the angle (having missed all wires), it's called a Bolter. The LSO will also call "bolter, bolter" over the radio to make sure the embarrassed Aviator in the aircraft is aware of the situation.
Touch and Goes are common in the training command as the first few passes for a student aviator in type, but after that, they want "Traps" which is when the aircraft catches the wire.
A great video but not much of a debate. The Carrier would win hands down. I love your channel and I was lucky to see some of the Battleships in use during the 80s while serving on board.......the USS Constellation CV-64. There's a reason that they don't make Battleships anymore just as there are reasons that they'll never do away with the Carriers. As far as I'm concerned the 2 coolest ships ever produced were the Battleships and the Carriers so it was cool seeing this comparison.
I think an Iowa would win if it could somehow get in gun range before being detected
@@k9foru2 "if it could somehow get into gun range" is a very big "if". During the heyday of Battleships they have never sunk a Carrier. There was an incident where 2 German Battlecruisers sunk a British Carrier in 1940. Battlecruisers are very similar to Battleships so I'm going to give you that one just to make you happy. During WW2 something like 23 Battleships from various countries were sunk by the planes from Carriers, including 6 of our own Battleships which were sunk at Pearl Harbor. The Forrestal would have something like 85 aircraft, each one armed and out looking for the New Jersey. With the aid of air refueling the Carrier could easily be hundreds of miles away from the 24 mile limit of the New Jersey's guns. The New Jersey would have to do some major sneaking up to beat those odds. You could claim victory by the fact that the USS New Jersey is still around whereas the USS Forrestal was scrapped.
@@michaeldolny2919 I agree but if you somehow magically caught the carrier away from the task group and with your opening salvo smash the flight deck you stand a chance but it would require borderline criminal negligence but just 1v1 I think the iowas have a chance if you can magically get in gun range
@@michaeldolny2919 The Brit carrier only carried a few swordfish and I think weather was kind of crappy so they couldn't launch unlikely they would have gotten both of them anyway son not a great example but very true I think that was Salmon and Gluckstein(Scharnhorst and Gneisanau) spelling maybe wrong The Brit carrier was either courageous or glorious can't remember might have even been one of the earlier ones.
@@johnyrebbaron2618 you are correct about the German Battlecruisers. It was the Glorious that they sunk. I think the Courageous was sunk by U-boat.
I love battleships (obviously or I wouldn’t be here). To me each serves its purpose at the time it was introduced into service - sometimes strategic deterrence and sometimes delivery of ordinance. Both platforms performed their rolls to perfection. Unfortunately for the battleship, the age of missiles became the rage and lobbing heavy projectiles was reserved for the “Volkswagens” launched from catapults. Until we perfect killing each other from space the super carrier might be safe. Long live the US Navy and many varied missions around the globe.
Great recount of Cold War and post WWII history. A lot of people don't know about the remodeling of the Essex and Midway classes. They don't know about the "Revolt of the Admirals" and the intra-service rivalries and government infighting with the National Security Act of 1947 and creation of the USAF and DoD.
Excellent! I learned quite a bit from this video today. P.S. James V. Forrestal is probably my favorite Secretary of Defense, and I rate him right alongside Frank Knox as my favorite Secretaries of the Navy. Thank you very much for a superb video! I'll be watching this one again from time to time. Andy McKane
My grandfather served aboard the Forrestal when the fires happened. It affected him greatly, he could barely stand a thunderstorm after that.
Wouldn't hurt to have a Battleship for a China Sea slugfest. High tech has a place, but sometimes brawn is nice.
Slugfest against frigates and aircraft with hypersonic missiles?
@@phiksit a 2,000 pound shell with no eletronics is tough to jam. 20 mm shots against 16 inch inbound shell. Granted the Hypersonic is a game changer.
@@johnmcelwain5884You dont use the CIWS to shoot down the shell. You use Surface to Air missiles. Also, these shells are not accurate by today's standards. The opposing ship doesn't have to jam them, they can jam the Battleships radar which is used to aim their guns, and then some hard maneuvering can render incoming shells not yet intercepted useless.
8:13 The first country to build CV from start is Japan. the earlier CVs were converted ships that began with something else. even Battlecruisers became carriers with main big guns retained!!!!!
As a VQ2 airman, I flew aboard the "Crispy" in 1967, in an ea3b Sky Warrior. (this was before the fire)!
I had the honor to serve on the Forrestal's sister, Saratoga. I remember steaming over for what became Desert Shield/Storm with Wisconsin. She was an impressive ship and looked so graceful steaming with us.
My uncle served on this ship and he told me about his run in with George down in the gym. He had a 50lb weight thrown at him that just barely missed and put a pretty decent sized dent in the wall.
1:45
The Royal Navy describe the Queen Elizabeth class as supercarriers.
Not surprisingly, as they are indeed the same in deck and hangar space as a Forrestal and and not far off a Nimitz.
Under full war load QE class displaces low to mid 80,000 tonnes and can operate 72 F35B and eight helicopters.
The QE’s 24hr max sortie rate is higher than a Nimitz.
Excellent video. I agree that Forrestal was a better national expenditure. However within their types, the Iowa/New Jersey was better, as many things needed to be worked out, and many improvements needed to be made on the super carriers, whereas the Iowas were a mature technology.
I would love to see you do a tour of the mothballed fleet at the old Philadelphia ship yard ?
I think it would be really cool if you made a (maybe?) separate channel, which would bring news from the maritime world to viewers.
Which ship had the better food?
I read somewhere that for shore and limited inland bombardment, New Jersey is quite compedetive, with a carrier air strike, over a fixed and limited durration.
I enjoyed this video. The Iowas are my favorite battleships, and the Forrestals are my one of my favorite carriers. Top spot would have to go to the Essex class (as built) or maybe one of the British carriers from late WW2. The Forrestals are easily my favorite supercarriers though. Personally I think the Midway with all the crazy add on pieces to the deck or the later supers with island further aft look ridiculous and more than a little un balanced.
I think SAG would be centered around a 10k ton cruiser platform. Well, kind of like the zumwalts with a gun except that it should work and not cost $800k per round. No reason for stealth or some of the ridiculous features on zumwalt.
Merry Xmas and a very happy new year Ryan and all who volunteer and especially to all who served.
Ryan! I love your glittering black undershirt. Where did you get it?
Just a note on the elevators the Navy wanted a design that each elevator could feed aircraft to each catapult. The changes after the Forestal class the two elevators forward of island could feed the forward catapults the elevator aft of the island and on the port side feed aircraft to the waist catapults.
The unflattering nickname given to the Forestal was USS Forest fire.
SLEP
Service Life Extension Program.
Zumwalt vs Iowa
Some other ideas for unconventional comparison videos:
1. The Sacramento class AOEs that used the left over Iowa class powerplants.
2. The Algol class transports that are the fasted commercial ships ever built and are later purchased by the USN. They are longer but otherwise similar to Iowas in performance and size.
3. The Seawise Giant, the largest ship ever built.
4. The EEE class and similar container ships that are perhaps the most important ships around right now.
The first two are military ships, the latter two just really big ships that it might be fun to compare with New Jersey. None are combat capable, however, so they wouldn't be much of a contest in a fight. :)
Random fact: When I served on the Independence in 88-92, the DC plates still had 5 inch guns on them, even though they were actually removed decades earlier. It made me wonder how accurate those drawings were.
Another awesome video, thanks Ryan!
Given what is happening with the USS Milwaukee and Covid-19 on board how would the New Jersey handle an outbreak of Covid-19 on board her
Probably the same way that it was handled aboard other ships where it broke out ... stupidly.
Excellent discussion of the supercarrier and Forrestall itself.
So Wise , Thank You .
on Christmas day at the church Christmas dinner i met a USN vet who served on the USS New Jersey as a damage control/ machinist in the machine shop.
I remember seeing the USS Iowa (BB-61), USS Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Saratoga (CV-60) at Pier two Newport, Naval Station, RI. The Forrestal and Saratoga made the Iowa look tiny.
SLEP:service life extension program
You have noted this before... The Battleship allows you to park, in plain sight, a massive display of American power. But the aircraft carrier--almost by definition--has to remain "over the horizon." You're not going to put a "Supercarrier" 12 miles off the coast of Lebanon; but you can put a battleship right there to be seen. On the other hand, the prospect of an aircraft carrier operating out of your reach that can suddenly put precision ordinance on your head without a damn thing you can do about it and without warning, is a HUGE deterrent. But it's an invisible threat, a strategic threat. The Battleship is a visible threat, a tactical threat. Remember, Iraqi troops surrendered to a spotting drone from the Wisconsin; they didn't do that to the A-6's operating off the carriers off the coast. So, strategically the carriers are a more potent issue, but tactically the battleships were a major threat. Ideally, it'd be nice to have BOTH...a carrier force AND a (small) number of "Big Gun", heavily armored Battleships. Each would carry it's own value and role. (Sadly, we're not likely to ever see another "Big Gun" warship that you can park in a hostile waters and whose hulking presence alone deters someone from trying to hurt it.)
Neither ship was "better", they complimented each other and served as part of a team.
development of battleship guns and cruiser guns stopped with the salem iowa and the alaska class 8 12 and 16 but there was someone called Gerald Bull he developed long range guns and smart weapons and his company still made artillery systems with incredible range with the advancement of those guns a gun ship with long range guns (over 100 miles) is possible with a large caliber weapon does not half to be a 16 inch gun but a rapid fire long range gun say 8 to 14 inch would be useful
Served on her sister ship CV-60 Saratoga in attack squadron VA-37. Super carrier over a battleship any day!! the amount of fire power a carrier airwing can bring to the table is unreal. We nicknamed the Forrestal forever fire. And our name was the suck-in 60 from dixie, as our home port was Mayport Florida
also sinking sarah too, as they sunk her in port once due to a storm brewing
@@madpuppie59 Well that would be easy to do, Mayport was a shallow bay port her draft with most of her aircraft off was 33-34 feet her berth was around 38 feet deep. The time she opened a huge crack in her hull on a speed run during carrier qual’s by time she made in back to mayport she had a draft of 41 feet Took every sea tug in port to push her through the mud to get us even close to the pier. We ended up with I believe, two flat barges between us and our pier and dropped the gangway onto the barges. Ya good times on the sixty from dixie.
@@madpuppie59They routinely did this with Forrestal as well - and I'd wager that they did it with the JFK (CV-67) who was the last carrier to be based in Mayport. We always went to sea at high tide.
VA-37 went on to do 4 deployments on Forrestal from 1986-1990 as part of CVW-6. Sara was in SLEP from 88-89 IIRC.
This was excellent thank you!!!!!
Or in the case of CV 6 Enterprise...the forward centerline elevator was blown off and sailed 400 ft in the air....
Best investment in a warship by my nation? CVN-65 USS Enterprise the first, fastest and finest nuclear aircraft carrier.
Mobile Chernobyl, we miss you.
To me it makes no sense at all to do a comparison between a battleship and a carrier that was built about 15 years later. One can ask what ship is more significant or prestigious, but the rest of the versus thing is absurd. Anyway - the vid was interesting regarding to Forrestal´s life career. Thanks a lot.
Guess you can add Life Guard to the many roles and jobs the New Jersey has filled. :D
17:29 no extra rations of ice cream were exchanged for swimming pilots
I, for one, believe there is still a use for a battleship. What I wonder is if a battle plan could have been put into place where a couple of Iowa Class Battleships could successfully attack an aircraft carrier task group? Obviously absorbing hits from a broadside or two of 16 inch AP shells, would do some serious damage. For one thing, the flight deck could be made unusable in a short period of time. I always wondered, after Midway, why the Japanese didn't utilize their surface ships to go after the carriers. The surface ships were fresh and had all their weapons ready and the carriers had used up a lot of their ammunition during the attacks. As I said, I was just wondering.
Japan tried that at the very of the end of the battle of Midway they moved in their Battleships and other Surface ships. But at that point in time Admiral Spruance was already in the process of Withdrawing
In modern sea combat the carrier has the advantages of offensive and defensive reach and firepower. Her surveillance aircraft can track any surface ship except the most heavily stealthed and even those can be tracked by the attack submarine in company with the carrier. I know of only one instance post 1950 where a battleship got the better of a carrier, I posted that story here earlier and it was an instance not likely to ever be duplicated.
Right after the Battle of Midway Admiral Yamamoto was advised to attempt to bring the American carrier (they still thought they were only facing one after USS Yorktown was reported on fire and sinking) to battle with his Center Force of battleships built around IJN Yamato, but decided not to risk those ships within reach of shore-based aircraft operating from Midway and whatever aircraft the U.S. still had aboard.
Admiral Spruance was unwilling to risk his unarmored carriers against the Center Force, so once he had recovered the survivors from Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet's airgroups he turned east, away from the Japanese force. There weren't enough aircraft still flyable aboard Enterprise and Hornet to make up a full carrier wing, at least until a number of damaged planes had been repaired after a day or so.
Before a surface ship gets within range of a carrier, it would be destroyed by the carrier's aircraft or defensive picket.
I’d like to see at least a couple battleships kept ready for use “just because”. Tradition!
I'd like to see something on the Cruiser Newport News.
I think after learning about project HARP a modern Battleship has more potential than we give it today.
Since then it became a norm that CV should be bigger than any ships with big guns. and since the the trends for gun mounted warships will be smaller and less armored. even in the face of irregular warfare where non-state aggressors resorted on suicide bombing ships that showed how Burkes and Ticoes are unsuited for such warfare, someome even considered reintroducing external armor for these smaller armed ships.
I'd like to see a New Jersey vs Fort Drum (the concrete battleship) video
Solid, thanks.
Saratoga was NOT named after CV3, it and the 5 ships before her were named for a battle.
Where did CVN-65 fit in hear?
I'd like to see the Montana class built and put in service or a battleship even bigger and better than that.
Used to work with a guy that was on Forrestal, he said it used 2 gallons per foot.
I think we should keep 1 Iowa class just for moral purposes. They're absolutely massive and those guns have got to make you feel pretty safe.
My Great Grandpa Served On Saratoga In The 50s Then He Worked On The F-111
The question to ask is could an Iowa class have survived a fire such as the Forestfire er Forrestal had and would it cause it to never be used in combat again.
In the Army Air Corps became the Army Air Forces in 1942.
A pbsolete battleship vs a aircraft carrier would be an easy loss for the Jersy. Jersy is a close in weapon, aircraft carriers are a stabd off weapon.
I like the socks the guy on the left is wearing at 8:00
Note China is currently as of this video, confirmed to be building their first actual super carrier. Full catapult and arrester system like US super carriers and full size.
I 100% support reactivating at least 2 of the Iowa's as the center of a battle group. There is still a need for such projection of power in the world. For example: anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden or escorting takers in the Persian Gulf. In addition to weapons, the other resources they bring to the table would be invaluable (machine shops, hospital beds, etc).
Were there significant morale issues or mutinies on either ships? During Viet Nam there were very significant mutinies on carriers. What about New Jersey? In terms of carrier enhancement I would assume that service on a CV would be better than New Jersey when they were both operational. Did either ship have significant reserve officers aboard during Viet Nam?
Wasn't the New Jersey close by during the fire off Vietnam?
Well the concept of a carrier task force is still dominant but subjected to challenge due to anti-ship ballistic missile, CVNs are significantly large for that. The navy is experimenting the concept of a surface strike group consisted of DDGs and other smaller combatants.
There have been surface action groups for decades.
@@michaelsommers2356 SAGs used to be more concerned of sea control, but not power projection, until recently.
@@petershen6924 Surface forces can't really project much power.
Great video. Bad mic placement. Too much swallowing noise.
USS Forestfire! She's docked nearby in Bremerton. I wish she could be toured.
That was actually the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) which is an "improved" Forrestal design (port side elevator shifted aft out of the recovery area and superstructure shifted after to place two deck edge elevators forward) and was commissioned 8 years later. Forrestal was stricken in 1992 in Philadelphia, towed up to Rhode Island several years later and ultimately sold for a penny to the scrappers down in Brownsville, TX where FID met its fate in 2014. 38 years in service, almost 22 years in mothballs. It lived to be 59 years old.
EDIT: the Kitty Hawk herself is on its way around the horn right now to meet its fate in Brownsville.
The French have a super carrier, the Charles de Gualle.
I truly believe a handful of battleships are needed in the navy. A warrior who only knows one side is vulnerable to attack from the others. Japanese proverb (I think)
I say have both types of battle groups in circulation instead of one or the other
I'm doubtful that we could build a modern equivalent of a battleship, or afford it. Since it would likely be armed with rail guns, how thick would the armor have to be to stop or deflect shots from a rail gun? I know that it would have to be a LOT thicker than the New Jersey's is.
The WWII pacific war pretty much demonstrated which platform is superior. I think its time for a new class of warship.
I think we're already moving in that direction
Drones have been a game changer in land warfare so we can expect the same at sea
Maybe we'll see drone carriers of about
the same displacement of the former British Invincible?
13:11 Shots fired! XD
Maybe both ships can use the guy in the cubicle next to mine as a target...
Well, for conditions after 1940 (and currently)_I can't see any real doubt that large-deck carriers are a better buy for purposes of national defense than BBs. And I also say - I don't like that conclusion. I find BBs more attractive, charismatic ships (and thinking of that - I do wish we'd built a at least a couple of the battle-cruisers as such). Well, I wish for a lot of things, including steam locomotives in daily service and a passenger train network like the one i grew up with in the later 1940s and through the 1950s.
very cool
Nicknamed the USS Forestfire for a reason
At some point they gonna do the ironsides vs the iowas 🤣
In your thoughts how well would an Iowa Class survive hits by modern Missiles and weaponry both surface ship or Air Plane delivered . The detractors say the modern thin skinned ships will not survive well. That it would be better to be armored like an Iowa Class. But I am thinking that with the weapons of today even an Iowa Class would not survive much better. Especially if the enemy throws a tactical nuclear device at it which is entirely possible. Thoughts?
The pilot of the plane that fired that missile and started that fire was John McCain. He also crashed five airplanes in separate incident. Helps to have a father and grandfather who were Navy Admiral
Everything I've read blames outdated ordinance, incorrect installation and an electrical fault. Where did you find the account that blames McCain?
@@boraeananaren perhaps you should get someone with reading comprehension level above fifth Grade to read for you. Where did I say it was his fault?
@@kevinbarry71 I only asked for a source and petty insults your only answer? Where does it say he fired the rocket? I have no issue with you, why are you being so aggressive?
@@boraeananaren in your previous response you said I blamed him for that incident. I did not. If you cannot read and comprehend simple statements, then expect to be corrected. If that's your idea of me being aggressive, good for you. As for his plane firing that rocket, that is a matter of record,
@@kevinbarry71 What is there to misunderstand about "The pilot of the plane that fired that missile and started that fire was John McCain." Your words.
McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was parked on the deck edge across the flight deck from the F-4 Phantom that the missile was launched from. Nor did the fire start because McCain 'Wet Started' his engine (the second most popular story about how the fire started.)
These stories about McCain starting the fires were started by his political enemies AFTER he became a U.S. Senator and gained traction after he became a candidate for President.
Seems to me Forrestal had another fire, either during construction or shortly thereafter.
I would have rather have one Iowa-class And1 Forrestal rather than four Iowa-class ships preserved.
The Forrest Fire