After World WW3: "told you so they were so obsolete" Check Out: Check Out: RocketMoney.com/taskandpurpose Rocket Money is an all-in-one platform that helps you save more and spend less. Rocket Money is an all-in-one platform that helps you save more and spend less.
70--80 fighter bombers per carrier, 11 US fleet carriers ....thats between 770 to 880 fully operational fighter bombers....More than almost all but a few nations entire airforce and certainly more than Russia has in flyable condition. Not even close to obsolete. Just under a third of NATO's entire Air force. And thats not including Britains 2 and Frances 1 carriers. Or any of the escort carriers which means NATO could put 1000+ fighter/bombers in the air from carriers.
The Rand Corp predicted all Carriers( everybodys) would be sunk or out of commission within 3 weeks of WWIII, back in the 1970's. Carriers are obsolete against many countries now and the list is growing. have you seen what drones do to tanks? A Massive Drone swarm on a Carrier and her Destroyer/ Frigate escorts.would be indefensible. now theyre developing Drone Sub Killers.
Aircraft Carriers are vulnerable yes. But to paraphrase The Chieftain:” the Military is based on Capabilities, not vulnerabilities.” Until something comes along and offers the long range power projection and strike capability a Carrier can, it’s going nowhere.
Not to mention OTHER SHIPS exist in a goddamn fleet/carrier task force to prevent the vulnerabilities from being exploited, they have no idea how much shit the US can kick out of everyone else if they wanted to
carriers are not going into a fight with china, russia and may be iran. they can go to smaller nations tho (unless russia arms them as retaliation for ukraine)
They're going to get blown up by china's laser weapons. It's 2023. Steel stands no chance. China has a rail gun carrier. I'm.sorry, but I don't see it happening
A barrage of missiles can take out any target even if the country has the best air defense, so it can certainly sink an aircraft carrier. The military tactic is called SEAD
As a submariner in 91-95, I can tell you that our #1 priority was to protect the underwater flanks of the Carrier Battlegroup even if we had to sacrifice ourselves in the process. Losing 100 mates to save 5000 sailors on a Carrier is an even trade in our book. Silent Service! 🇺🇸
These new ginormous carriers are massive super expensive targets for an attack by 100's of missiles at one time simultaneously the radars would be overwhelmed saturated & rendered useless kaput ..........sorry this is fighting the last war today and losing it of course
@@duke9555this is why we have the Aegis combat defense systems. They're scary effective at taking down everything from planes to missiles to ballistic missiles and even satellites. That's why we never send a carrier by itself, but surrounded by 8 or more Aegis capable destroyers and cruisers.
@@TheLycanStrain Aegis cannot dispatch 100's of missiles maybe a few but lots would get through and render a carrier out of commission .........sorry I know fanboys are distressed over this tragedy
@@duke9555are u slow u know the Angie’s intercept rating actually pretty plus jamming and everything warfare them middles are useless theirs a bunch that goes into protecting a carrier then just ships silly boy 😂😂😂😂 now go along
@@duke9555 Any possible threat is closely monitored by many assets. A US aircraft Carrier battlegroup also relies on allies to keep an eye on all potential belligerents and they often flaunt some of their capabilities.
We've seen in Ukraine what happens when neither side can achieve air superiority in a modern conflict. Aircraft carriers allow a handful of countries to place an air force basically anywhere in the world, meaning that handful of countries has a massive advantage in almost any conflict. Yes, it's possible for aircraft carriers to be sunk, just as it's possible for helicopters to be shot down, tanks to be blown up, and infantrymen to be shot. Doesn't mean any of them are "obsolete".
Yeah, exactly. I think too many people are hyper fixated on it being vulnerable that they forget that fighting is a 2 way range and everything is vulnerable to anything when in range.
@@Mmjk_12 Firstly, I didn't say what "obsolete" meant, I said one thing that it _didn't_ mean. Secondly - missile frigates can't launch AWACS aircraft, can't maintain a combat air patrol, can't perform reconnaissance, or do any of the other thousand and one jobs an air force does. There is _nothing_ that can do the job of an aircraft carrier; until there is, the carrier will not be obsolete.
I served aboard the USS Franklin D Roosevelt and have to say…. They are not only NOT obsolete but a powerful deterrent… besides… as soon as they figure out how to extend the range of the aircraft on board so that the ship can remain outside of coastal misses (that drone refueler will be perfect) we will be gold…
@MarkGardner66Bonnie, thank you for your service! Got a question for you, I noticed in the video @ 5:18 the ship conductor I believe was wearing a venzuelan flag patch on his right arm, are you guys allowed to wear a foriegn nation's flag on your uniform?
This argument is why we need a fleet defender capable of doing all the things the f-14 did only upgraded. Fly twice as far, carry twice as much weight and fly twice as fast as the f-18 air frame.
I can imagine a couple easier (and possibly cheaper) solutions to the missile threat, and I'm not even an engineer (although close to it). But as you said, the role of a carrier is so important that even with newer threats it likely won't be replaced soon.
I feel like a lot of the recent discussion of 'capital ships are obsolete' comes from the sinking of the Moskva, but that discussion neglects to mention some of the more unique factors that made the Moskva so vulnerable. It was out there alone, did not change its patterns over the weeks prior to its sinking, and the anti-air operating system was not very ergonomic so could have led to fatigue on the operators. Then there is the infamous maintenance report which I still don't know is real or not, but if it's real, it would explain how a ship with three layers of missile defense got hit by two non-stealth sub-sonic missiles. A combination of underestimating the enemy, neglected maintenance, and incompetence from command is what really sank the Moskva.
The Russian navy is mostly obsolete much off the Russian black sea fleet is over 25 years old and the Moskva was over 40 years old and was very outdated and even on her last major overhaul in 2009/10 that still meant she was obsolete in 2022
Couple of errors - Moskva wasn't hit by Ukranian drone ships, it was hit by Ukranian Neptune missiles, The USS Ford actually displaces around about 100,000 tonnes (you added a 0 by mistake)
Technically true, but IIRC (not sure how much of the detail on the attack has been confirmed), there were suggestions that drones were used to fool and deplete Moskva's anti-missile defenses (eg CISW-style systems), thus creating an opening for the Neptunes. Not sure how much of that success was due to deficiencies inherent to ship-based anti-missile defenses (eg. limited magazine sizes/ammo storages) as opposed to basic failures in Russian ship design and failures in crew training.
Just a little correction for you mate the USS Gerald R. Ford displaces 100,000 long tons not 1,000,000 (million). Still she is a giant of the sea, compared to the USS Texas, a huge battleship from WWII,that was only 27,000 long tons, you get the idea how truly big a super carrier is.
Any particular reason, why are you comparing modern supercarrier with one of first american dreadnought battleship? USS Iowa would be more fitting, but of course it will be not such difference right? USS Texas was tiny. Lengtwise comparable to Ticonderoga class cruiser.
When I heard him say 1 ion tonnes I had to rewind to make sure I heard him right. Never send a group pounder to do a brief about anything but which MRE has the best pudding.. .🙄
Direct from a former US allied pilot, he loved the joint exercises as his flight wing would almost always “sink” the carrier, regardless of the defensive capabilities within the broader carrier group.
@@mojothemigoI think the Fat Electrician recently had a video on how the US military handcuffs 'blue' forces to stress our men, making real combat that much easier (not that any exercise is equivalent to war). And honestly I would put many of our allies on a substantially higher level than our strategic adversaries. There's little shame in UK forces for instance doing well against us.
@@mojothemigo That is kind of the point. I know the American taxpayer rightfully takes a backseat in any potential shooting war with a great power but I'd be out in the streets calling for the head of Naval command if I found out the military lost a multi-billion dollar carrier and 5k personnel because they decided they could afford to be careless where they decided to place the beating hearts of US naval doctrine.
@@simonnachreiner8380 Of course, no argument. Awlhunt sounded like he was taking the exercises at face value and though it was a lot easier than it actually is to kill a carrier.
Infantry and all tanks,machine guns, and artillery are obsolete because WW3 will be a nuclear war with the MAD option being used causing 25 years of nuclear winter . ☢️☠️ .
America once thought fighter planes were obsolete, that all warfare would be fought using bombs and long range missiles. Then they got 1-uped by MiGs in Vietnam, losing many pilots because they were out maneuvered and vulnerable during runs. … thats when they decided to produce the f-15
They are an easy target to modern hyper-sonic missiles. There is absolutely no way these missiles will be stopped. Additionally, assuming they can't track and hit such a large, slow target is delusional. Only one missile is needed but imagine if dozens are launched at staggered intervals etc? You still can't see it???
@TheB00tyWarrior and yet the Japanese used carriers for nearly every victory. Not to mention basically every military still believed battleships were the heart of their force at the start of WWII. When carriers can be taken out regardless of defenses they'll be obsolete
An aircraft carrier is basically a weapons depot on a ship. If it blows up every rounds, bombs, missiles, fighter jets, helicopter will sink together with it.
@@TheB00tyWarriorThe Japanese were ahead of everyone in realizing that the aircraft carrier was the most effective combat ship available, a lesson the U.S. learned soon thereafter.
The SinkEx that was done to the USS America, took place over 25 days. It intended to test how much damage a Supercarrier could take as well as what vulnerabilities these ships have so that the in-development Ford class could be made even more resilient. After 25 days, they had to use internal scuttling charges to bring the Big A beneath the waves.
Technically one of the reasons it took so long was by deliberate choice as it was a research exercise to improve the Gerald R. Ford class - the Navy could gather much more data if they didn't just press kaboom on enough firepower to send it to the fishes in some hours. Regardless, even an old design was able to take it on the chin and I can imagine that $13b and 13y didn't yield a paper boat.
@fladave99 The hypersonic threat against a moving target is overblown. The invisibility because of the plasma cloud is overblown.. You apparently get it
At the risk of being labeled a nitpicker, the Ford's displacement is not one million tons, but 100,000 tons. That little zero there makes a big difference, in this case. Other than that, great video!
In 2005, wargame exercises demonstrated the capability of a swedish gotland-class submarine to sink a US nimitz-class carrier. It didn’t mean that carriers were now suddenly obsolete, it just meant that the US had to relook at its anti-submarine warfare strategy to deal with stealthy diesel subs. Everything in military is always an arms race. Any weapon designed to kill aircraft carriers will eventually end up having something to counter it as well.
That also served as a wake up call to revive the ASW program which was minimized in 1999. I never understood why the moved away from it when they were so gung ho about Soviet attack boats for decades.
@@strykrpinoy According to some people when the Soviet Union fell it was the end of history. A lot of politicians believed that and congress controls spending.
Carriers are _routinely_ 'sunk' in exercises. That's because the exercises are designed to identify weaknesses in specific systems, not to just "let the good guys win" every time. That's how _Russia_ runs its exercises, not NATO. In NATO exercises, Bluefor routinely loses, because you learn best by failure.
Subs are the biggest danger to carriers. They can pop up anywhere, including right next to them. There's no defence against a salvo of heavy torpedos launched at close range. Sure, the sub will be toast afterwards, but so will the carrier.
Gotland class move at 5 knots on AIP, and lack the range to do deep water patrols. That exercise is only valid if a carrier happens to run right into a sitting sub while for some infathomable reason choosing to operate in littoral waters. Its very unlikely in the expansive pacific ocean.
I'm an ex- submarine guy and can tell you that aircraft carriers are ridiculously vulnerable to submarine attack. That said, they are great against opponents who don't have a modern submarine force and do have something of a chance if the attack subs in their task force are able to detect submerged enemies before they get in to firing range. In surface warfare, even an overwhelming missile attack has little chance against a modern carrier task force and the cost of such an attack would be in the billions - so no, Iran can't send a bunch of speed boats out to overwhelm it.
'I'm an ex- submarine guy and can tell you that aircraft carriers are ridiculously vulnerable to submarine attack.' And so we pay you submariners to guard carriers against submarines.
I think that’s because I’m a real scenario the carrier would depend on its escorts to detect submarines and deal with them accordingly. Don’t think a carrier would be operating alone without counter measure against below surface attacks like Virginia class subs or destroyers.
2 things I always say in this context. 1: Carriers weren't bullet proof in WW2 either, but we kept them around. 2: China is doubling down on aircraft carriers. Enuf said.
@@dough6759 Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Russian engine tech they've appropriated leads to airframes having to launch with diminished payloads, combined with poor carrier landing performances. If their naval pilots were crushing it, they'd be posting countless videos of it as proof.
A military airport that can travel the world and carry dozens of highly capable aircraft is by no means obsolete. A infantryman or a f16 can both br destroyed but why that can do in the process makes it worth it.
That military airport is also a weapons depot that carries tons of missiles, bombs, round and dozens of fighter jets, helicopter and transport planes. As the saying goes, never put all your eggs in 1 basket. A lone submarine ambusing the carrier strike group can sink the aircraft carrier like the simulated battle in 2005 when the Gotland-class submarine sunk the USS Ronald Reagan, a carrier worth a staggering $6.2 billion.
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko how is a lone submarine gonna get past all the destroyers. Small radar boats. Other submarines surrounding the carrier…..it’s a Fleet not just the carrier…..
@@theangrypenguin3014 That's what happened during a simulated battle between Swedish submarine and US aircraft carrier. They were shocked how the submarine quietly sneak passed the strike group to destroy the aircraft carrier. Go look it up, it's not a "what if" situation but a real simulated battle
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7koyeah but military exercises don’t reflect actual combat and the escorts weren’t allowed to use active radar in that exercise you know that right?
As President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick” isn’t any better said than with this vast amount of cold hard steel. Id argue that the range of our stealth fighters and older fuel tankers with no stealth ability (should be changing soon) is the only thing making the carrier obsolete in a war against another super power.
@@iii-ei5cv it's more like stealth fighters can't expand their range as much as non-stealth. clean F-35 have more range than clean F-16, but with drop tank F-16 range got further
No shot we would ever have real full on warefare with China (or any other superpower) and NOT have it escalate to full on thermonuclear warfare. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs already made all other forms of direct conflict between superpowers obsolete back in the late 1950's, when ICBMs were developed. The only thing that matters is having enough advanced modern nukes to prevent the enemy from shooting most of them down. Everything else, that the US military does is either A) to enrich the military industrial compex (the people -lobbying- bribing the politicians that approve more and more spending) B) to flex on the haters (China) C) for counterterrorism/ counterinsurgency/ peacekeeping, fighting against significantly less technologically advanced enemies D) to give to Ukraine or Taiwan or any other country we want to help fight our "near peer" enemies. The only reason we are paying to develop this "near peer capability", is because we don't want to give away our newest and best shit, so we need our second best, 10-20 year old shit to be good enough to fight China and Russia. If they develop a 5th gen system, we need a 6th gen system, so that we can give away all of our old 5th gen systems to Taiwan without dipping into the good stuff.
Hypersonic missiles will make quick work of this carrier considering America has ZERO countermeasures against it. China also has 200x the shipbuilding capacity that America does.
Bro, it's not Battlefield V. Even with the best air defense, it will eventually run out of missiles and rounds if it's attacked by a barrage of missiles. That's the whole point of SEAD
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7koyou have to overwhelm not on the carrier but it’s entire defense force. That’s like 8 destroyers. 3 cruisers and 5-7 submarines…..it would be less expensive to just send ships at that point
The first casualty of war is the planning. We have to wait and see on how China fights. The worst part is now that Russia is the enemy, they will definitely give recon info to China. We can’t even shoot them because that would mobilize them to war.
Most nations can't take out a single carrier group with their entire military, much less 2 or 3, which is what would be operating together in a hot war.
A friend of mine was working on the development of the phalanx gun. This was at general dynamics in Pomona Calif. they had an aluminum target that they were getting the system to track. Then a southern pacific train came by & the unit locked onto the rotating wheels of the engine. If anyone on the train was paying attention, I bet they would have had a very surprised look on their faces. This was sometime in late ‘70’s
When I was in Afghanistan there were f-18's in our airspace that had come from an American carrier. It was sailing off the coast of Pakistan. They were transiting over Pakistan, air to air refuelling in theatre, before supporting ground operations. Then they would get more fuel before flying back to the carrier. It’s insane that they essentially sailed a whole airforce in to the region. It would then be replaced with another carrier so that one was always operating. This went on uninterrupted for years. Only the American navy could keep that tempo up. Not to mention how much it must have cost!
You are right, but Americans were peerless in Afghanistan so their strength have not been tested in a war with someone who can take countermeasures in air and sea. It's alike watching Brazil at their best trashing Singapore in football match.
all to fight a few goat jockeys with 80 year old rifles. 20 years 3 trillion dollars and got chased out of afghanistan like woman . What a disgrace! US hasn't won a war in 75 years
That Vulcan part "I am completely and mentally stable" was too funny. Also, it was a couple anti-ship missiles that sunk the Moskva. Also, also, the Gerald R. Ford class carrier displaces 100,000 tons, not 1,000,000 tons. 100,000 tons is already insane enough (for now.) Edit: I can understand the confusion for both. The Russians lost several ships to both drones and missiles this Summer. Also, numbers are hard. Numbers, in addition, words. Postedit-edit: All 11 combined would be over 1 million tons.
And the Moskva sank after many of it's systems failed or were accidentally incapacitated (like locking fire extinguishers because they were frequently stolen & sold off). Contrary to popular belief, it is hard to sink most warships.
@@liamanderson9104if there’s people who are corrupt enough to steal fire extinguishers from their own ship, there are also people who are corrupt enough to buy cheap (illegally obtained and potentially non-functional) fire extinguishers to comply with governmental safety regulations without having to spend much money.
The Moskva was sunk because it was a ship full of broken or insufficient equipment. It wasn't operating anywhere near its full stated capabilities. The US military doesn't tend to suffer from those kinds of problems, at least not to such a devastating effect.
This is like saying you could break into a Bank Vault easily with the right tools and you could walk right in. While yes that is true, it is not even a bit taking into account the fact of all the defenses you have to get through to get to that door and then once you do, the amount of sheer force, that’s going to be utterly dumped on you if you ever tried. Great vid!
accompanied and protected by remote controlled ocean going swimming AA-drones or their equivalent as do destroyers/cruisers now ... an expendable protection screen controlled by the carrier
Saying Aircraft Carrier are obsolete because they are potentially vulnerable is like saying Goalkeepers are obsolete because they might concede goals. That's what defenders and the rest of the teams are for.
They are not obsolete, but they are very vulnerable. In a hot war against China or Russia, i anticipate they will not be deployed aggressively. It costs less, much less, to build 1000 missiles than to build one aircraft carrier. And 1000 missiles can guarantee a carrier kill, no matter what defenses are available.
For anyone who's never had the opportunity to see one, up close and personal... Never think for a second that even an old aircraft carrier is obsolete. As long as aircraft can take off and land on them... they are BAD ASS. I know this because I served on one of them. And the people who keep them ready are brashly phenomenal. They, like all of our service members, take their jobs seriously. Thank you all for your service! You are appreciated far more than you could know.
Add to this the fact that US carrier crews have tens of thousands of years of combined experience, all recent, in using carriers during war. Russia and China have no relevant corporate experience using carriers. They would be guessing what to do at first.
Battleships are also badass but they are obsolete. Aircraft carriers as they are right now I think are obsolete for peer or near peer conflicts, but of course like the video mentioned they are adapting. If we get really capable directed energy weapons that can take out swarms of drones and missiles, then aircraft carriers will be given new life. But from what I've heard that's not really on the table.. like one laser I saw in a recent video (not this channel) took 3 seconds to destroy an incoming missile. That's nice, but it's not going to help when China launches 100 missiles at the same time... most of them will get through. I think we're moving into an age where you have to be small, cheap, and distributed to be most effective. And it's perfect timing that we're getting stronger AI to go with that, because protecting people is part of what makes our weapon systems so expensive (e.g. tanks). Without worrying about a crew, it should all get cheaper and more capable at the same time.
Similar kinds of things might have been said about the Japanese battleship Yamator ----the biggest battleship ever built. But it was sunk without a chance to get in the battle. Suppose the Chinese launch 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 missiles at a US carrier? How many will get through to hit their target?
@@protorhinocerator142 Experience? Useful but not critical. Today we do not use grandfathers to use drones, satelites, hypersonics, Quantum communications, etc. US carriers are good for 3rd world countries but really useless in the age of hypersonic missiles . A real superpower does not mean one has lots of carriers but rather its people, disciplined , organisation, production capacity, tech level and dedication ... are qualities not many countries have . China is truly one of them. Just look how prepared they were when they were bio attacked with covid and in days detected , and in days organised brigades of doctors , and in days built hospitals, face mask by the millions...are just an indication.
Yeah. They are a valuable tool and an even juicier target. These ships can do all the things you say as long they are not at the bottom of the ocean. The defining problem with an AC is that as prey in war they and their group are merely floating castles and no castle has been able to withstand enough incoming projectiles until just one of them breaks through. The CG defense has to be 100% efficient, the enemy only ONE time in hundreds or thousands. No ship is unsinkable.
While you touched on some of the ways a carrier strike group can defend itself, I think more discussion could have been placed on the Navy's primary means of protection which is to interrupt the enemy's "kill chain". In order for an enemy to hit a moving target over long distances like a ship, the weapon must have the ability to continuously track the target vessel. And in order to do that, the weapon must be continuously updated as to where the target vessel is. The Navy has both classified and unclassified means of interrupting the enemy's kill chain by destroying or otherwise neutralizing the command and control of the missiles, the ability to use radar, the ability to use satellites, and / or the ability to communicate with the missile in flight. On board weapons are really weapons of last resort if the enemy's kill chain can't be broken for some reason.
Yes I’m going into the “kill chain “ doctrine more in the Zumwalt video I’m working on , I think they’re updating the term to “kill web” to better illustrate the way the new technology works
I think this is an oversimplification. Less of one than the video but still problematic. Interrupting kill chains is hard and getting harder. It may require things like like shooting down satellites which would be a massive political escalation because its a strong sign of nuclear warfare. It might also require hitting targets in mainland China. Again a giant political escalation. Truthfully we don't have an independent way to verify how vulnerable carriers are because the needed information is classified(as it should be). It is also not a good idea to trust what the US military says. The US military has a long history of building massively expensive projects of little military value due to pressure from politics or the military industrial complex. We desperately need better oversight organizations that have enough access to classified data to make reasonable determinations but that are also independent of the huge amounts of money involved. But videos about how to create such organizations and even about the organizations that currently exist are boring. But I do really wish videos like these were at least honest. I hate that this video by implication says the ships are not vulnerable rather than stating the obvious that we don't actually know because the data is classified.
@@mrvwbug4423 ''They have the best missile defense system in the world.'' Yes, they do. ''The DDGs escorting our carriers can shoot down satellites.'' They can as of now. If you're talking about RIM-161, they are guided by GPS, radar, and infrared. But not the satellites to be coated stealth coating against radar, and infrared, especially radar-lock resistant stealth coating, without radar lock, radar guided missiles are useless; all very recently developed. You can google Hahn Jae Won, stealth, or Jae Won Hahn, stealth.
I agree. However America is Always READY For The "Friend" Thats Holding A Knife Behind Their Back. Sometimes, We Have Not been As Ready, But We Did Ok. AMERICANS ACTUALLY LIKE IT WHEN YOU PISS US OFF. We Stop Fighting Each Other And Start Kicking Ass.
T and P hit the nail on the head. Aircraft Carriers don’t operate alone and always escorted by its on strike group flotilla. The carrier is the dame of the ball, but there are other guards that ensures that she doesn’t get destroyed.
The Yamato was the penultimate `Gun Club Mentality´ IJN battleship class. It was built without RADAR or satellites for targeting, it was too big to use, and too expensive to risk in the Solomons battles of 1942-3. It had the biggest guns and was the biggest expense to the Imperial Japanese Navy it had very little effect in the war. It also was a power projection concept that was pushed too far for its vulnerabilities.
Yamato and Musashi should have been used in the Solomons. From August 1942 through November 1942 in particular, those two warships could have made a huge difference for Japan there. Big mistake.
The iron dome was effective until there were more offensive rockets than defensive rockets, a massive rocket spam accompanied by hundreds of drones flying in lower than the carrier deck could absolutely be a threat.
The Soviets already planned using saturation attack against carriers back in the 60's. That's why these carriers are only good against countries that cannot actually fight back. Iran, China or Russia surely could.
US has recently mounted 300 killo watt lazers to all its war ships that will make mints meat of thousands of rockets which would also mean all our war which no country on earth wants all our war with US
@@bigglesharrumpher4139 Since Kiev regime made it a criminal offence to publish any war related pictures from Ukraine on social media, it is hard to estimate actual Ukrainian loses. You will get 10 years in prison for posting a picture of Russian missile hit.
Does China have the world's largest navy? Yes. But in perspective... China has the world's Largest Navy in the same way that Hot Wheels is the world's largest car manufacturer.
@@locoman888 Our destroyers and battleships alone can destroy China's entire Navy. China has zero modern warfare experience, the United States has over 100 years. The United States defeated both the German Navy and the Japanese Navy at the same time. In the Atlantic and the Pacific! When it comes to Naval warfare, China wouldn't last 6 months against the United States.
@@locoman888 No, China does not have "hypersonic missiles". China tends to lie about their military equipment. No one has independently verified that China has a hypersonic missile. China just like Russia made that claim. But as the world found out, with russia, their so-called hypersonic missile turned out to be nothing more than a modified cruise missile.
@@David-ic5nu Winnie the Pooh is firing all of his top generals and he's arresting CEOs of corporations. The two functioning aircraft carriers that China have had to be towed back to their ports by tugboats. I'm not underestimating China.
In a war against a lesser adversary, an aircraft carrier may be a daunting weapon. But against another super power such as China, it’s simply a high value asset that they can focus on. Despite defensive missiles on board, they are of limited supply and no match against China’s seemingly bottomless supply. As portrayed in this video, a carrier would be used as a floating airbase in support of the hundreds of aircrafts that would fly to mainland China. It would take hours for a few hundred planes to take off, giving China its exact location and plenty of time to respond. China would immediately overwhelm the carrier with massive quantities of low cost missiles and exhaust its defensive missiles, then simply fire a couple of hypersonic to finish it off. This would not only wipe out an $80 billion asset, but several thousand military personnel and several hundred planes that are still on deck or otherwise out of fuel and have no base to return to.
Ships sink, ground-based missile launch platforms don't. The countries that can't overwhelm an aircraft carrier's defenses can be dealt with less expensively than with aircraft carriers. And the bit at the end of the video touting aircraft carriers' functionality in providing humanitarian aid was really pathetic.
China Can't build a road, bridge, or skyscraper without it flooding, collapsing, and or catching fire... I'm sure the US Navy is terrified of those mighty Chinese missiles...
Actually there is value to a carrier. Imagine a carrier carrying planes that can launch 1000 mile+ hypersonic missiles. Basically you can draw a massive 2000 mile circle around the carrier as your effective combat range. The real issues right now is that US is behind on hypersonic missiles.
@@henli-rw5dw Hypersonic missiles can be launched from anywhere and strike any target on earth. No need for planes or carriers to launch them. Carriers are 19th century war machines, retrofitted to fight a 21 century warfare. Once their locations are detected by satellites, they can be swamped by tens of thousands of suicide drones. Carriers are useful in intimidating second or third tier countries, but sitting ducks against superpowers.
@@henli-rw5dw Why on earth would you want to build carriers in order to launch hypersonic missiles instead of from much less expensive long-range aircraft or ground bases or get much the same functionality from ballistic missiles?? E.g., the US has two carrier groups in the eastern Med at present. How would planes with hypersonic missile carrying capacity add much to their capabilities? Don't just wave your arms-- be specific.
For the sake of accuracy, if you zoom in on the Newport News shipyards, you don't see two Ford class carriers under construction; you see ONE Ford class and the decommissioned CVN-65 USS Enterprise. If you go into 3D mode you can clearly see the "65" on the super structure. (And that it's not placed as far back as the Ford class design.)
During the Vietnam War, I was stationed on the USS Coral Sea, CVA-43. There were 47 other ships in our task force, which included every type of ship you can imagine. When people say that these ships are the safest place to be, they are correct. It would be incredibly difficult to stick one of these ships.
Yet alone, Swedish submarine sank the Ronald Reagan multiple times in 2005 and exercises outside of West Coast. Yes it’s not past the carrier, strike group and all the screening ships etc. and torpedoed the carrier to hell. and yes, even managed to sneak it back out without being detected go to that type of sub. The strike group are vulnerable.
@@volvo145 ... You really should read up on those exercises before spouting that BS. The Carriers were severely limited in what they were allowed to do to defend themselves.
@@Nesstor01 Dude. Stop. You're giving me second-hand cringing so bad it's painful. Do your own serious research instead of relying on "alternative" news sites serving as mouthpieces for the Kremlin.
Why does is it always either or with people. "Aircraft carriers are so vulnerable and expensive!" "Aircraft carriers are invincible!" No, they are not invincible, they can be destroyed, but they are also hard as fuck to destroy why do you think China had to put like 50% of its RND budget just to have some form of self defense against these super carriers. There are only 2 countries on Earth who could sink one Russia and China. And Russia is a maybe maybe not tbh.
13:45 im glad the Navy has been trying to improve Enlisted Berthings. I served from 2003-2010 and the berthings make or break an assignment. My first berthing was a 100+ man on USS Nimitz & my second was an 80 man on an older LPD and it too really sucked, but after I made 1st class and was moved to thr 9man first class berthing life underway was way better.
I have no idea whether new aircraft carriers are a worthwhile investment or not, but I had expected to hear an analysis of the threat from below. In simulated combat between a single Swedish sub (the HSMS Gotland) and the entire USS Ronald Reagan taskforce, the Swedish sub was never detected and could deliver a simulated lethal blow against the carrier at every attempt. I don't know what capabilities carriers have acquired since and what capacities potential enemy subs may have, but this kind of threat is definitely something worth taking into account.
Swedish subs are state of the art and far more advanced or capable than those of many other Navies. The Royal Navy often "Sink" US Aircraft Carriers in exercises but NATO knows where all the Russian Subs are at all times. If Sweden were to go to war with America then HSMS Gotland and her chums would be taking on more than one US Aircraft carrier battlegroup.
@@sichere I'm not imagining a war between Sweden and the US. I'm just saying that since that kind of technology has proven to be highly effective against carriers, it should be worth considering when you discuss pros and cons of carriers, whether any conceivable foe has that capability right now or not.
@@beardmonster8051 There are no foes with that capability or balls. Operating Submarines is an art the West excels at. and they are constantly developing and adapting them with allies to keep it that way. The Royal Nay task force lost some major ships during the Falklands conflict in1982 but kept the carriers just out of reach from the enemy and remained highly effective.
Doesnt the csg get reduced capability during these tests aswell, even though i understand the idea a sub has great capabilities, its gotta find the US fleet and i assume at that point it wouldnt be able to do or say much without being noticed. I also dont want to buy the idea that “the US wont be at war with Sweden” although i firmly believe that is true, i prefer to think that an adversary (or even a US) sub can get into a firing solution. Thats the alarm, however it eventuated. What we dont know anything about is what the ships behave like after a hit, and how many ships have to be out of active service before the carrier is exposed. Yet with a max of 220 sorties per day one could presume that more aircraft would get into the air to fill the early warning aspects. Plus any rescue options.
@@f1reguy587 You can read about the exercises yourself. They took place from 2005, and the US was alarmed enough by the results to hire the sub for an extended period of time to try to figure out ways to counter it. At the time, the anti-sub escort ships didn't stand a chance.
They were ALWAYS big floating targets... That is why they are ALWAYS part of a fleet so it can protect it. To be fair, I think the doctrine of the aircraft carrier group is very good because of their flexibility & modularity. (Both the elements of the group protecting it & the Aircraft carrier itself)
Yes you are correct on both points in my view. It has been the case that a nuke from a ship, submarine, aircraft or missile has been able to take out a carrier for many decades. They got sunk on a regular basis in WW2 by conventional means but for sure they were very useful.
I believe space is every bit as vulnerable as the ground, probably more so. In WW6, (3 if you like) the amongst the first things to go are satellites and the mess caused may make it impossible to relaunch and maitain up there new ones for some time. All warfare involves the struggle between defence and offence. We do not know how good defence against hypersonic missiles will become but to be sure it is a priority in research. The Tank was obviously obsolete in 1916, close to useless in fact but it's still here.
People they a thing call super sonic rocket Russian has it so do the Chinese U S is working on one but don't have it yet there no way to defend against it so any ship is just sitting duck don't care how many carrier you got this is not 1943 or 2019 it whole new game!
@@SHOE53 The HYPERSONIC weapon has to be accurate and long enough ranged to hit a moving ship in the middle of the ocean. They don't have either capability yet. You don't seem to have noticed the Russian one does not work very well in an actual war. However the American Patriot System is working and improvements on it are under developement.
The answer to the question is "no". America is the only country in the world that can project power globally on multiple fronts. They can also establish air superiority in any battle scenario and has the record to prove it. The US is also developing laser and hypersonic missles of their own and their carrier groups are the most advanced in the world.
The carriers are not a waste of money. The current method of designing and building ships is. Between the design flaws found here, the littoral and Zumwalt class ships…something has to change on a fundamental level
If aircraft carriers are obsolete, why does everyone seem to want one? Russia clings on to its one remaining carrier even if it painfully needs to be scrapped and keeps promising a new one. China wants to build a fleet of them to rival the US. Even Turkey and South Korea are planning to build their own. Aircraft carriers are platforms for other systems; until you can replaced that platform that does the same job, carriers are staying.
China has no purpose for a carrier. They don't have the duty of keeping global free trade open. If China were stupid enough to use a carrier against the US or its allies it would be sunk quickly. They can't afford a carrier group. Xi sees a big toy and thinks it's the answer. He should really look into WHY the USA uses carriers and not stop at realizing they exist.
Carriers are no more vulnerable to being sunk now than they were in the past. Carriers fight as a carrier group which is composed of various submarines, escorts and of course various interceptor aircraft. Aegis destroyers can shoot down enemy satellites, shoot down missiles, radar aircraft can see them coming, interceptor aircraft can shoot them down. Its kind of like SAM missiles in the Gulf War, once the Iraqis turned on their radar they got a missile fired at them.
I imagine the opposition to a carrier would also be a task force of some sort, not sure what they put in the PLAN battlegroups today. Like some mix of long-range shore rocket artillery, a small number of chinese carriers of their own, land-based naval attack planes. I guess the faster the air contingent of the carrier can establish air superiority, the better. Like the opening fight would be between attack aircraft sent from respective group.
@@SusCalvinYeah even the Chinese PLAN know the usefulness of a carrier as they are adding to their carrier fleet. Me thinks they want their Type 055 for air defense and to throw a lot of ASCM and ASBMs at US carriers while their own carrier air wings clean up what's left.
Did two tours on a carrier as a LDO. Finding a Carrier Battlegroup in the open ocean is hard. We made an EMCON transit (radiating zero radars and depending on the E-2's for our eyes) from San Diego to the Philippines and the Russians never found us and they launched two Bears every day looking for us. We finally radiated our search radars two days out from the PI and the bears flew to us. Even with RORSATS it's hard to locate a CVBG.
I always thought carriers had Russian civilian spy ships following them “telltails”. Plus them being easy to see from satellites due to their wake and TH-camrs giving away their area of operations on a daily basis. Sure that all might change in time of war, but wars these days are fought by proxy and any direct attack from Russia or China would start with a surprise strike on the carriers within reach, conventionally or unconventionally.
When I found out the Nimitz class had communication cables that would be cut by the watertight doors,I figured it was time for new carriers. Still didn't answer the question about a swarm of missiles.
I've heard it said that there is nothing more expensive than a second best air force. I guess that applies to naval air power too. But just because it is feasible that a carrier can be destroyed doesn't mean we are indifferent to the possibility. Let's do everything we can to protect our carriers.
Carriers are the linchpin of a task force that has multiple layers of defense and various flexible offensive capabilities. It sounds like the "sail away" cost of a Ford class is $8B, which is far more attractive than the $13B for the lead ship. Since WW3 is currently underway I hope the navy continues to operate all its Nimitz ships and bring them all to a high level of readiness. And then keeps them in active reserve for another quarter century.
Nobody else has invest anywhere near the effort into carriers that we have. A few have put effort to developing weapons to counter them, but we’ve also been doing the same thing. Our biggest vulnerability is from within, not from whatever firepower or enemies can scrape up. Anyway, carriers, fast heavily armed frigate and destroyers, and silent subs.
Believe the British have put more into the development of Carriers. I mean with the VTOL, the slanted runway. They even had the first carrier. HMS Argus.
@@EnglishScripterno one has more research into carriers than the us but id say China in the next 3 years will have more and better carriers than the Uk
Don't forget carrier protection has come a long way from 1982 when the Royal Navy flew helicopters off the bow and stern of Invincible and Hermes transmitting a carrier sized radar signal.Isnt the cost doubled when you add in the missile cruisers and destroyers.
Well, there is no question as to the force an Aircraft-carrier brings to the fight. However, for 1/20 the cost of an Aircraft-carrier the Chinese can build how-many-hundreds of those Carrier-killer missiles ... and it only takes 'One' of those to kill or completely disable an aircraft-carrier ... (Of course sinking one of our AC, would mean we are deep in a war, ... and just having one or several of our Carriers in your neighborhood is a strong deterrent against any war ... Keep building them)
The funny thing about ney Sayers is the fact that the reason China is focusing so much on anti carrier weaponry, is because of how much of a threat the carrier imposes against china itself. That alone speaks volume for the reason of having our carriers still. There will always be a threat to them, and that threat will increase, but in a carrier group, the carrier is well protected...
I think the point is aircraft carriers are only effective as an offensive weapon if they can get their aircraft in striking range of the enemy. Because China is focusing on tactics to keep aircraft carriers out of range of China is not an argument to keep putting money and resources into aircraft carriers. What's the point of building $12B ships carrying another $4B in aircraft if they can't get within range of their targets? There is an argument to be made that aircraft carriers are essential as defensive weapons however their ability to project power is diminsihing. Think about it from the enemies perspective ... they don't care how much of a threat the carriers are in theory as long as they keep them away from their shores they pose no threat at all. That's all they have to do ... they don't have to sink anything. Look at China's navy from the Chinese perspective ... they've built the largest fleet in the world complete with aircraft carriers but they have no overseas bases or maintenence facilities ... they can't project power ... their fleet is designed to keep US carrier groups from getting close enough to China to do damage.
@@davekeating5867 - The effective range of most anti ship missiles is 350 miles. The F18 super hornet one way is about 500 miles, or over 1000 miles round trip, which can be extended with additional tanks mounted underneath, obviously this means that the carrier has better capabilities than the anti ship missiles. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the carrier is almost always a part of a carrier group, which includes missile destroyers, amongst many other types of ships, making it's capabilities and lethality that much more. The carrier is a mobile military base parked in any part of the ocean deep enough to support it, this is a force multiplier and well worth the money it costs to build and maintain them. Just think of it this way, the Dolittle raid was a perfect example of the threat a carrier poses. While we aren't launching bombers from carriers today, each fighter has the capability to essentially be a small bomber, and with the advance weaponry we have today, no nation is safe from the possible damage that could be caused by the carrier.
@@thomasrodgers2291 You make it sound so easy. You would be correct in your assumption that an F-18 outranges most Chinese anti-shipping missiles ... and that would be a big advantage if the Chinese only had anti-shipping missiles to defend themselves with. While the US navy operates carrier groups with air defences the PLN also has a navy with air defences as well as more than a thousand fighter aircraft at their disposal and the F-18 isn't a stealthy target ... especially with a pair of external fuel tanks under it's wings. You claim that a US F-18's outrange Chinese anti shipping missiles ... it does in most cases however here are the ranges of China's current most potent anti shipping weapons: YJ-18 submarine launched cruise missile with a range of 330 miles DF-21 ballistic missile 930 Miles DF-26 ballistic missile 1850 miles. All are nuclear capable. There may be others they've never shown us as well as glide vehicles launched from ballistic missiles like the one seen flying around the earth a few years back and the Chinese may be fudging their numbers ... an optimist would say they're inflating their numbers but a realist would say they're giving you a false sense of security.
@@davekeating5867 Expect China will take the first shot using the element of surprise, same as Putin did. They have to. Once they establish their intent and the US Military is weapons free, it's going to get ugly for the Chinese as the sheer force of America's combined arms capabilities lands on their head. I have confidence in the US Forces' ability (including Space Force) to systematically dismantle defensive and offensive systems, C2 nodes and critical infrastructure, and then press the enemy with conventional gear. What a lot of folks omit is that the US won't be alone in this. Australia for one. I can also envision Indonesia and other SE Asian countries will jump in (again) and take the fight to second tier platforms like Chinese Coast Guard and the gaggle of civilian vessels will finally get it shoved up their arse.
I believe a correction to be made at 18:18 The Ford Class carrier definitely does not have a displacement of million tons. Instead it's somewhere around 100,000 long tons. Unless you are referring to the addition of the displacement of all the Ford class carriers. Awesome video though!
@@DavidBowiesCock Yeah bud. I was a bit perplexed when I heard "million tons" because my country's Aircraft Carrier has a displacement of about 50,000 tons, making it seem very tiny, too tiny. Had a laugh when I checked the actual dimensions online.
I served as a boiler technician on the USS Ranger, CV63. At that time I was informed that the this carrier set a speed record of over 50 knots. I'm not exactly sure if this is true. If so, perhaps the power of oil fired boilers used to propel these smaller carriers out perform the nuclear powered steam propulsion of this behemoth. Perhaps size matters or the Ranger is a special case. I saw a different type of screw on it (Ranger) when in dry dock at the PSNS which didn't look anything like the depicted screw of the JRF.
I refueled the Ranger numerous times from the USNS Kawishiwi as a rig captain. You may have been aboard her then... mid 1980's? And as a 3rd Mate I had a conventional carrier, I believe it was the USS Constellation or Kitty hawk, designated on our radar doing over 50 Knots for @ 10 mins in the Indian ocean...so yeah. I believe you! The length of the hull is a limiting factor in top ship speed. The conventional carriers I listed above were @ 1000 feet...so the main limiting factor for them is the power plant. I believe the Ranger was smaller, but I know she was damn fast to. The Ranger was the Carrier we worked with the most.
and yet, the energy to conceive, procure and manufacture could not be better use for mankind. America will soon have three "Ford Class" carriers and yet, not a single high speed rail system in site in US. Wow..
I think whenever somebody says "X piece of equipment is obsolete because it's too vulnerable" just ask them what out there can perform that role but better or how has the battle space changed to make the capability not important. An average infantryman has been vulnerable since before agriculture but until we figure out battle droids we still need guys taking trenches and buildings and just going around doing all that fiddly stuff humans can do
thing is, now there is nothing to perform that role, carriers are just a big target on a war against china, they can't perform a role there. carriers still can project power against africa and other parts of the global south tho (unless russia arms them with anti ship missiles not far fetched after ukraine)
@@somedudeonline-i3t so the change will be in tactics. We're already seeing just that fighters with longer ranges drone refueling. Better ewar. The assumption that the piece of equipment is invulnerable is the problem. It's like infantry. We've seen infantry change how they fight repeatedly and we problem aren't at the final evolution. New threats pop up. The enemy can hit them from further away. But that role hasn't changed. And so far we don't have a way to mobly deploy fighters. A carrier can just show up and launch them vs having to forward deploy them to islands which are already super dialed in targets. A carrier can be anywhere
The capabilities argument doesn't make sense in a time of war. How much capability does the missile ship the moskva have? When fighting a war, attrition, logitstics, and economics will come in to play. The role of an infantryman has changed, his effect on the battlefield has changed, his value has changed. Aircraft carriers are for peace time projection, a near peer with several options to take them out, is going to take them out of play. The argument isn't that we don't want the capabilities, it's we want to diversify to sustain and protect those capabilities in a cost effective manner.
@@awesomeocelot5379 the moskova shouldn't have sank. It sank because the Russians had done everything wrong already. Their sensors were shit. Their emergency systems were shit. Most of it wasn't in good working order. Carriers don't deploy alone and no American carrier is going to be in that state of disrepair. We agre the moskova sank but does that mean that missile cruisers are obsolete? No. If a helicopter is shot down does that mean helicopters are obsolete? What is the better option for quickly deploying massed air power? Relying solely on land bases won't be enough. Obviously next gen air force fighters are trying to have longer range but it doesn't matter if your craft gets killed on the ground. So there's also an arms race when it comes to surface to air missiles and all that fun stuff. Seems like the solution is protect them better. Carriers replaced battle ships because they could command larger areas of sea. Not because they were invulnerable
The Moskva was hit by two US made harpoon missiles that the US gave to Ukraine. We just told them to say it was their own Neptune missiles. In a war against China we would use the B-21 Raider, cruise missiles (regular and anti-ship), Space Force assets, and F-35's flown from Japan/South Korea. Anti-sub operations would have to be conducted before the US carriers could get close enough to China so the carriers would not be the first to fight. In the 70's we had many different aircraft, each with it's own mission. So we would have 90 aircraft on our carriers. Now, they typically carry 40 F-18's, 2 C-2, 2 E-2, and 2 helo's but with the smaller F-35 a carrier could hold over 100 aircraft.
Most people claiming that modern aircraft carriers are vulnerable targets seem to forget that a carrier forms the core of a carrier battle group, the carrier doesn’t have to rely on its own defences except as a last resort, there are destroyers, frigates, submarines, the carriers own aircraft, and possibly even cruisers, providing a defensive screen for the carrier.
Hence capital ships. Even in sci-fi, they meant they were the commanding ships & projected power. But they are usually escorted because they aren't invincible. Probably the only times the aircraft carrier sails alone is when it is delivered, restationed, or on its way to be scrapped. And that is a high 'maybe' on the first two.
Tell that to a 300km/h supercavitacion torpedo with a electrical initial stage, that will launch so close of the aircraft carrier that will have no chance
@@internetisinteresting7720 Which country has a) such a torpedo and b) a vessel stealthy enough to get through all the screening ships and submarines to get close enough to launch it?
@@internetisinteresting7720 No enemy sub will ever get in range to launch one. Russian subs are slow and not terribly stealthy, Chinese subs are junk, both are only a real threat in their own littorals where they can use their diesel boats effectively (diesel boats are generally quieter than nuke boats). Russian SSNs are slow and easy to track, Chinese SSNs are a joke, relics of the 1970s with notoriously leaky reactors and can only stay out at sea for like a week.
Honestly, i think foreign area denial abilities have really advanced, and carriers need a carrier group advancement. Longer range missiles, new aircraft with longer range and best sensors, unmanned/minimally manned surface ships that carry more defense and attack missiles to protect the carrier, and UAVs as loyal wingmen to help multiply the force of our manned planes. That will keep the carrier group relevant.
Additionally, perhaps we may see new ship groups, or reorganizing our ships into different groups, to better counter the type of threat faced. Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out there. The perceived threat has been rapidly changing over the last decade (non-state to major state) and the change of pace in technology easily outstripping military timelines, it's going to require big expensive changes to our military. I just really hope unmanned vehicles actually work out for the capabilities we desire. We can't build or afford 350 ships with 200-400 crew. So our only way forward is cheaper, smaller unmanned ships to augment. Fingers crossed
Every single item on your list is already happening. Every one of them is an ongoing process where the DOD improves every element every time they figure out an improvement. Now compare what we have to what anyone else has... and it looks like we're still way ahead of our competitors here.
@@markpukey8 The fact that the US is actively testing and trying various 6th gen fighter platforms while our nearest potential enemies are still struggling with what we figured out 35+ years ago means we are lightyears ahead. it really is crazy how far ahead the US is in the ability to actively project power.
@@coopercartmilldon't be arrogant. That will get you dead every time. I'm a USN vet and I don't propose to think what the navy can or can't do. That goes for thd DOD or the Pentagon. By the way the US military likes to be 1 gen ahead of the pack.
@@coopercartmill Every time I start to doubt what you say, I think about the first Gulf War and President Bush (the smart one, not his idiot son) casually letting the world see our Stealth Fighters and Stealth Bombers. I was a young adult watching CNN at the time and I recall the "HOLY SHIT! WE HAVE THOSE???!" feeling. And a few years later realizing that if I felt that way... how did the Russians, the Brits and EVERYONE ELSE feel when they saw how easily we could penetrate their anti-air defenses if we wanted to? This does not even consider the video footage of precision guided munitions going INTO OPEN WINDOWS to kill our targets, and the data on the effectiveness of American bombing runs versus historical norms. We spent 5x and much per bomb, but hit with more than 10x the effect of any prior air attack. So the richest nation in human history was able to kill you cheaper than you can kill us. My HOLY SHIT moment must have been felt in every national capital on the planet. God only knows what we have hiding in the dark in 2023....
I keep thinking of the battleships Musashi and Yamato for the time they were The most expensive ships ever built. They were huge incredibly powerful yet what seemed like a good idea at the time soon became a mistake. For now they seem invulnerable but we are talking about what the technology will be like in 20 years.
Modern antiship missiles have long been commonplace. Sure the carrier is big but it is deceptively fast and the ovean is vast so good luck tracking yhe varrier
@@whybndsu I agree with you good luck tracking I carrier today but who knows what the technology will be like in 20 years. 20 years ago I could never have imagined walking around with a very powerful computer, phone, camera, light, ie. Smart phone in my pocket.
The Yamato class were designed and built at the end of the big gun era. The irony that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor signaled the era of aircraft as the primary danger to ships is not lost on naval planners. The Yamatos didn't use that data sufficiently. Also, the tech to counter aircraft effectively was not available.
People also forget when they talk about China that the Chinese Navy encompasses all of their vessels, including local patrol vessels. They never factor in the United States Army or the Coast Guard
In one instance one submarine got past our defenses in an exercise. I don't think we're unbeatable without loosing a few defenders if 1000 missiles fired within the span of 30 minutes. But we can only claim with small conflict, we are unbeatable.
I think the discussion isn't really between carrier or no carrier, but few very large carriers or many smaller carriers integrated into a combined strike group. More expensive per capicity, more distribution of assets.
How small are we talking? Because here in India, we have two 40,000 ton medium carriers with a third on the way, but our Navy is still hell bent on at least a 75,000 ton heavy carrier ASAP. So what is the max USA can do? Three 75,000 ton heavy carriers instead of two 100,000 ton supercarriers? FYI, Light Carrier (1 fighter squadron) Medium Carrier (2 fighter squadrons) Heavy Carrier (3 fighter squadrons) Supercarrier (4 fighter squadrons) Assuming around 12 fighters per squadron. I don't think there is much of a difference in between targeting a medium or heavy carrier and a supercarrier. They present about a similar sized target. Difference is that the supercarrier can produce a much denser aircraft bubble around it, which smaller carriers struggle to do. A heavy carrier might be a sweet spot, but go below that and you are compromising on capability more than the advantages you get out of it.
@@death_parade basically you've got cube square law dictating that bigger carriers are more efficient, but constitute a single target. I don't really think ANY carrier is small enough for targeting to be a question of size instead speed of the target. As is said in video the protection of the carrier group is largely the group not the carrier, so if your bubble is absolutely invoulnerable you want it as big as prac Hej hejtical, if you consider the possibility something might get through maybe spread the same air group over two so that if you take one hit you still have somewhere to land. The air wing costs more than the carrier, and the support group is pretty expensive too. It's a trade off, I don't know where the ideal is, I suspect no-one does untill there is a shooting war. And then only what the ideal WAS.
The ground based laser systems we currently have can intercept missiles at the speed of, well, amplified light. I think that a nuclear powered carrier has enough power to run one. I am sure the thing has been designed for just such upgrades. We already have vehicle mounted lasers and as an engineer working for Raytheon we shot down an ICBM with a laser mounted on an airplane-- 13 years ago.
The airborne laser in a modified 747 program was cancelled because it could shoot down the ICBM in the launch phase only if the 747 was flying 1000 miles inside Russian territory during launch. And none of the modern lasers are as powerful as the old chem laser on the 747. Disabling a missile in launch phase takes 1000 times less laser power than in the terminal phase. The lasers the navy are mainly designed to blind IR seekers on incomming munitions. THey can also destroy plastic drones.
The problem with Laser Defense systems is that you can only fire once or twice in the same heading before the heated air starts to diffuse the laser, compromising its damage potential. And thats just a basic physics limitation. You can’t really get around it without fundamentally changing the weapon platform. Plasma has potential but has yet to solve the propulsion->sustainability hurdle. Basically, a plasma based “laser” would look like a piss trail parabola. A directed plasma projectile has to find a method to accelerate from its gun barrel without damaging it. Using magnetic materials and the railgun tech could be the answer but I have yet to hear anything on that front, its just my speculation.
Chris, I enjoy your videos and I watch them every time I get a chance. Which is why I feel the need to correct you on one thing. The Moskva was not sunk by drones, it was sunk by two Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship missiles. I hope this helps and thanks for all the awesome content! P.S. The Neptune is a radically modified Soviet Kh-35 missile. It was developed closely in collaboration with our Western allies. So you could definitely say that the US played a big role in sinking the Russian Black Sea flagship.
One Nimitz (/Gerald R Ford) class carrier can carry more strike/fighter aircraft than many nations have in their entire air force. And the USN has how many (super)carriers? Somehow I just don't think those kind of numbers are going to be obsolete in the foreseeable future.
And the battle group is basically death to any enemy ships, aircraft, missiles and subs without about 1000 miles of it. Enemy aircraft and aerial drones would be jammed out by EWAR and shot down before they ever detected the battle group on radar. Small boats and drone boats would never get past the destroyers even if they could get within visual range. Subs and undersea drones would be detected and destroyed long before they could get into torpedo range of the battle group. Enemy spy satellites would be jammed out by EWAR if not shot down
Any carrier group or battleship group that goes into expedition is always shadowed by an enemy submarine.. Not to.mention the signal ships that double as part of a fisheries fleet.
@@highpriestoftheflyingspagh8071Video games can give a good general idea of concept, more so if they're a simulation, which world of warships is more arcade like(sadly), just cause your old and outdated doesn't mean that video games don't have a use in talks such as this.
@@highpriestoftheflyingspagh8071 I did say general mate, also as said wow is arcade (meaning less accurate) .Also no I didn't serve that's a service my old man and grandparents hold the honor of not me. It may annoy you that people do use games as reference, especially when its not simulation based, which offer much more accurate info. But they can and have been used for training, and for ptsd interestingly enough. The specifics of naval combat, logistics and capabilities is something that one would have to be boots on the ground for, or boots on deck in this case. I never mentioned games (especially WoW) as being a 1:1 just, and I repeat, a general proof of concept. Yes they do Remotely provide insight. Edit: removed unnecessary sentence.
Also no you couldn't write much to convince me otherwise, because I've had these talks with many veterans from various branches and service periods. Perks of being a sons member I guess.
In a US navy study after ww2 it was discovered that a Japanese naval special unit of divers was trained to attack US carriers using ju jitsu techniques. Demonstrations of this were studied and found that a single diver could cause significant hull damage using basic martial art attacks.
The FORD group has some added capabilities NOT known by the Press or general public- with damned good reason. I wouldn't advise taking it on at anything less than say 22,000 nautical miles or so , and yes, that's all the way around and a bit more. The Ford defines the term "TEAM SPORT'.
Building a super modern, high tech carrier like this, drives technology on a lot of levels, all over the US. That be tech to be used directly in the carrier, but also tech in industries supplying in the building and maintenance of the carrier.
To stop any further capability dicussion, and the elephant question in the room, what is not answert in the video. How to stop a mach 10 missle? Fact is, that no anti-missile system exist, that can defend against a missile that flies (Mach 10) 3.5 kilometers per second. And imagine 10 or 20 of them coming at the same time. That means Game Over for any ship. The second it is recognized, it is already too late.
6:59- Aircraft carriers have the most sophisticated air defenses on the planet….and they never travel alone…they are with a full fleet that all have their own capabilities. The goal of a carrier is to get planes within range and provide cover support as needed…it’s an air craft carrier for a reason. The people that talk against it, don’t understand how it is used in combat or it’s capabilities.
Carriers can be obsolete. Depends on their defensive skills. Would and should the US Navy sacrifice multiple destroyers, frigates, and cruisers to keep one afloat? Absolutely.
My wife and I nearly got run over by a carrier about a decade ago as we transited Newport News in our little sailboat: MY error in not recognizing how massive they are and tough to change speed with. Felt like being approached by the Rock of Gibraltar, tbh. Obsolete!? About as obsolete as humans are😉. And we'll just keep making them until after the powers that be decide they aren't needed any more.
From what I can see, China and the PLAN are not discontinuing their own carrier program. We'll just have to see what kind of carrier task force they think up.
@@JimCarner I still think it would primarily be a test between the air wings and robots of the carrier group and anything the opfor has on the shore and in their own carrier groups.
@@JimCarner I imagine those things will start to show up in carrier groups as well, like how a carrier group can already launch a cruise missile and deploy drones. I haven't seen any sort of dedicated "drone carrier" yet. Part of air dominance is the use of long-range robots. I'm told the carriers today easily hold around 90 aircraft? China is starting to build more carriers, but not at the pace the USA can keep. They don't seem ready to abandon the carrier either. They might enjoy the advantage of parking a carrier outside one of their client states the same way you do. Like a chinese carrier outside the coast of Somalia etc. On the high seas, the USA can still easily match any other carrier force. There's really few examples of carrier duels in recent time. WW II carriers don't see eachother, the effective range of their air wings make those battles sprawling and sometimes confusing things.
@@JimCarner I assume other ships in the naval task fore would fill those roles. Other vessels already perform anti-submarine roles or serve as launch platforms for various robots. The heavier aircraft and drones still require that runway strip and the logistical support a carrier hauls with it. The need for air superiority is still not gone. Giving over air superiority on the high seas and during amphibious operations would be a big deal. The drone complement of an airship would still need to duel with land-based fighter aircraft and whatever anti-air robots they got.
They are just a big target. I was on a US attack sub in the 80s. During war games we were able to get underneath carriers and take pics of the bottom. Our captain had big kahoonas. We even shot a signal flare over the flight deck during one war game. I can't even imagine what is capable today.
Nothing is invulnerable. Subs included. Having said that, I was a surface guy but a few times while stationed in the Gulf, went down into visiting attack subs to give the port brief in the CPO Mess. The Chiefs watched me and my facial expression droop down as I looked over the framed photos on the bulkheads, some of which were carriers through the periscope. Aw shit. ☹ The Sub Chiefs seemed to enjoy that. 😄
Everyone forgets about the CSG when it comes to Aircraft carriers I feel. Everyone who doesn't have one, wants one. I still believe in the Aircraft carrier and its still my absolute favorite kind of ship. Nothing else comes close.
@SeattlePioneer I'm well aware. That's why tactics must evolve as well. Had the Japanese evolved their strategy to prepare for such an assault, the Yamato may not have been sunk. Logistics and strategy matter just as much as overwhelming force. China is bulking up and but as of now, they could not sustain enough saturation strikes to eliminate the us navy in the pacific theater. The US navy has the most comprehensive navy and the greatest by displacement. When they run out of missles, fishing boats aren't gonna help sink an aircraft carrier. But that's just my opinion.
Doubtful. Most of the Nimitz are near the end of thier service life and certainly have thousands of small maintenance problems. Much more efficient to replace them and upgrade at the same time
@@es83stevenson88 I totally agree, but I am speaking of the hull of Nimitz class. Yes, of course the ship must be rebuilt, but using the Nimitz class hull saves at least 4 billion dollars!
@@orangehairbrain8733 I am no engineer but the existing hulls must have some wear and tear by now. Also I thought the ford class has major internal change to accommodate new technology and future improvements? Is there a video break down of the cost of the 4 billion? I would be interested in seeing it. Not trying to cause online grief or anything just interested in the subject
@@es83stevenson88 You make a good point! Did the Navy do a cost analysis of my point? No. Why not. The Nimitz hulls are fine and could be refurbished to last another 50 years. Saving billions.
@@orangehairbrain8733 Sounds like armchair supposition from here. New ships are built in sections these days and put together with everything already plumbed in. Trying to strip a hull then retro fit would definitely be more expensive and less cost effective than building new from scratch. Could it be done, yes, would it be worth doing or cheaper, unlikely, unless you wanted to do a quick upgrade of a limited scope to increase the number of ships available quickly(you are at war or have lost ships and need quick replacements). Wars are fought with what you already have initially and you only get new things if you do not lose straight away, and can expand manufacturing to a war footing, America had 2 years at the start of WW2 to increase their war production, and many projects/ships were started well before Pearl Harbour.
I wouldn't say the Zumwalt program was entirely a failure. The technologies developed helped many of these new ships. Unlike China the USA R&D's everything and doesn't just copy. You need to be able to pay for some issues in order to innovate.
I disagree. Nimitz was a major step forward. The 1st three were laid down like the last carriers such as the JFK. Then they went to the heavy lift system of pre-assembled units for the 4th. Maybe their draw back was electrical power but not initially. Ford class addressed that. Improvements were continuous for later builds. CVN65 wasa major change with nuke power. The only other nuke powered carrier is France's Charles De Gaul. The Nautilus was the 1st nuke powered sub. Nuff for now! Here we are almost 50 years on and they they'll be around for a while yet before they time out age wise.
Neat. This is the first time I've heard of Electric Reactive Armor, or the Nulka anti-missile decoy. I wonder what Electronic Warfare capabilities we'll also see from ground based vehicles in the future considering the rise of drones in combat.
Literally no aspects of vulnerability to submarines or torpedoes are discussed here, and for more on that check out the Chinese Song class submarine that surfaced real real close to the USS Kitty Hawk in 2006. Missile strikes from far away aren't nearly as deadly as anti-ship missiles fired from subs close in, and worse, anti-ship torpedoes can cause catastrophic flooding below the water lines across multiple decks. The real issue with the carriers--and carrier strike group concept in general--is that it ties out best offensive naval assets (DDGs, CGs, SSNs) into defensive roles protecting a carrier that is still vulnerable as shit to sub-launched torpedoes and missiles. Additionally, missiles fired from ships and land sites can now out-range the missiles carried by F-18s--even when factoring in the flight ranges in addition to the missile ranges. Carriers are basically the costliest way to do strike operations because you need to launch a missile that is launched from an aircraft that is launched from a ship with some 5,000 personnel on board that is guarded by another 3-4 ships/subs with another 1,000+ personnel on board of those escort vessels. You're paying for all of that just to put a small-yield air-to-ground missile on a target while tying down your best offensive naval assets in defensive roles. The escort ships (CGs, DDGs, and SSNs) are also now clustered together to make for potentially easier targets for a pack of submarines or even a single submarine operating alone equipped with a bunch of torpedoes.
I don't think the USN sends 5000 dedicated and professional carrier crews and combat pilots to sea so that they can be sunk in 5 minutes. There is no.more powerful ship at sea than a carrier, period. Build all the nuclear subs that you can, you still can't rule the waves over a carrier task force. Also, think how many surface and underwater sensors are looking for you in that nuclear sub? If you're an enemy sub and a trained ASW carrier fleet is bearing down on you, i think your hours left alive are very short numbered. I would tremble as a crew member of that submarine.
The short answer to this question is DEFINITELY if they face an enemy like Russia or China. All the evasive maneuvers and protection of the rest of the carrier group don't mean anything if they are attacked by hypersonic missiles, because they don't even see it coming before it's too late to react. The response time (according to the Institute for the study of war) when attacked by a hypersonic missile like the Zircon, flying at Mach 9 and has a reach close to a 1000 miles is about 30 seconds and according to the same study they need to fire at least 10 air-defense missiles in the time span of less than a minute to even have a chance to intercept one of these missiles. You can rest assured that the Russians or the Chinese will not just use a single missile to attack a target of this magnitude. In other words, the big bad bathtub will for sure be transformed into a massive static submarine without a shadow of a doubt.
Well, these very large carriers have never been used against any "formidable enemy" since ww2. It should be understood that any large vessel on the open ocean, is easily seen from satellite based assets, which can immediatly transmit its position, speed and track (real time) to land based and airborn missile systems, not to mention enemy submarine assets, all of which could launch hypersonic missiles, against which any slow moving ship would have little chance of survival. It can also be expected that such land based missile systems would not launch just one but several missiles and from different locations. So against a real formidable enemy, (Russia/China), any large sea born vessel would likely not survive for very long. Too big, too visable, too slow.
The CV's are not the only aviation capable ships in theater anymore. The smaller LHA/LHD are all quicly becoming fast attack carriers with the F-35 coming online. Don't ever doubt the sailors capability to fight their ship.
Don't you mean most ships now can support attack aircraft with the new vtol F35 and Attack helicopters? I don't think there's any ship in the US Navy now that can't use aircraft.
Valuable tool, absolutely. 13 of them is not enough, when you look at the world and all the issues that we face today. 20 or 25 would be a better target number for the U.S. to have in its fleet. IMO.
Most issues the US is facing are created by the US to justify the money transfer to the MIC. Obviously there is not as much profit in securing the southern border, providing affordable housing, healthcare and education as in war war war.
Aircraft carriers seem obsolete now against China & Russia given that they can be easily taken out with hypersonic missiles, such as the Russian zircon missiles. The zircon missiles are virtually undetectable with the surrounding plasma that absorbs all radar electromagnetic waves and are far faster than anything we have, and consequently, are unstoppable at this time. The zircons can take every surface ship out of a strike group. So, it doesn't look promising now to keep carriers, unless we can figure out how to make a missile defense system to counter the new hypersonics, which is a technology that we are very far behind now versus China and Russia.
Working in the shipping industry, I have seen commercial satellites today can easily spot any surface ship even small military boats sometimes in real time. Something as big a carrier is definitely obsolete, I guess the US Navy Flag is what protects their aircraft carriers (with the fear of sanctions and retaliations if hurt)
Oh they ARE a thing… they have been a thing publicly for about 10 years. Which means they have been an actual thing for probably close to 20 or 30 years easily without anyone knowing about them… the U.S. tends to disclose “new” weapon systems long after they have been tested and used already lol
the problem with any energy based weapon is you're always pushing up against the inverse square law.... not that they aren't lethal. just you cant simply double the power to doable its effective range for example that and their a purely line of sight combat system..
The destroyers and frigates surrounding carriers and the Virginia class submarines that are a part of a carrier group add layers of defense to a carrier. It's not like carriers roll alone all over the place. Those destroyers carry missiles that can shoot down ballistic missiles. They've even had success shooting down an ICBM.
@pedro97w that’s where the B21 stealth bomber comes in and takes out a lot of their anti-ship missiles without them ever even seeing it on radar. The B21 has a radar cross section of a mosquito and is basically invisible on radar and it has stealthy missiles it can fire from 1,000 miles away.
This debate has been going on my entire adult life. I remember hearing it in the early 1980s. It was Senator Gary Hart's argument that the carriers were obsolete, and should be replaced with a larger number of smaller carriers whose mission would mainly be sea control--mostly anti-submarine, and many of the same arguments were used, but with the Soviet Union instead of China as the antagonist. I think we were are evaluating a carrier's vulnerability--we need to ask: what about the USAF air bases? When claiming a carrier is vulnerable--why do the critics never mention stationary air bases? Especially those in forward areas in range of the same tactical missiles that could be used against carriers? Those air bases on land cannot move. A carrier is far safer than the land bases, which would come under saturated missile attack. Yet no one suggests that the USAF air bases are now obsolete. You just find ways to defend them. Critics of carriers typically have no experience in the Navy or at sea. The ocean is HUGE. And a single carrier, when viewed from a satellite, is really not all that much bigger from other ships, including civilian. Yeah, up close in person it's enormously bigger than say, a destroyer, but not from a far away vantage point, like a satellite. And carriers can move much faster, and with greater agility than one might realize. A satellite might spot it in one pass, and easily lose it by the next orbit. I sometimes wonder how much the "carriers are obsolete" meme, is generated by the USAF, which is intense competition with the Navy for funding (this has also been going on forever). The USAF would love to see a few Ford Carriers get cancelled and the funding diverted to more NGADs and B-21s.
After World WW3: "told you so they were so obsolete" Check Out: Check Out: RocketMoney.com/taskandpurpose Rocket Money is an all-in-one platform that helps you save more and spend less. Rocket Money is an all-in-one platform that helps you save more and spend less.
YAY
70--80 fighter bombers per carrier, 11 US fleet carriers ....thats between 770 to 880 fully operational fighter bombers....More than almost all but a few nations entire airforce and certainly more than Russia has in flyable condition. Not even close to obsolete. Just under a third of NATO's entire Air force.
And thats not including Britains 2 and Frances 1 carriers. Or any of the escort carriers which means NATO could put 1000+ fighter/bombers in the air from carriers.
They're very much still useful! I mean a carrier is basically a mobile military base! How couldn't that be useful?
The Rand Corp predicted all Carriers( everybodys) would be sunk or out of commission within 3 weeks of WWIII, back in the 1970's. Carriers are obsolete against many countries now and the list is growing. have you seen what drones do to tanks? A Massive Drone swarm on a Carrier and her Destroyer/ Frigate escorts.would be indefensible. now theyre developing Drone Sub Killers.
I think damage control and design are very important when it comes to survivability
Aircraft Carriers are vulnerable yes. But to paraphrase The Chieftain:” the Military is based on Capabilities, not vulnerabilities.” Until something comes along and offers the long range power projection and strike capability a Carrier can, it’s going nowhere.
Not to mention OTHER SHIPS exist in a goddamn fleet/carrier task force to prevent the vulnerabilities from being exploited, they have no idea how much shit the US can kick out of everyone else if they wanted to
carriers are not going into a fight with china, russia and may be iran.
they can go to smaller nations tho (unless russia arms them as retaliation for ukraine)
They're going to get blown up by china's laser weapons. It's 2023. Steel stands no chance. China has a rail gun carrier. I'm.sorry, but I don't see it happening
A barrage of missiles can take out any target even if the country has the best air defense, so it can certainly sink an aircraft carrier. The military tactic is called SEAD
@@somedudeonline-i3t That is true! Carriers will continue be very effective against any nation that lacks modern anti-ship defenses.
As a submariner in 91-95, I can tell you that our #1 priority was to protect the underwater flanks of the Carrier Battlegroup even if we had to sacrifice ourselves in the process. Losing 100 mates to save 5000 sailors on a Carrier is an even trade in our book. Silent Service! 🇺🇸
These new ginormous carriers are massive super expensive targets for an attack by 100's of missiles at one time simultaneously the radars would be overwhelmed saturated & rendered useless kaput ..........sorry this is fighting the last war today and losing it of course
@@duke9555this is why we have the Aegis combat defense systems. They're scary effective at taking down everything from planes to missiles to ballistic missiles and even satellites. That's why we never send a carrier by itself, but surrounded by 8 or more Aegis capable destroyers and cruisers.
@@TheLycanStrain Aegis cannot dispatch 100's of missiles maybe a few but lots would get through and render a carrier out of commission .........sorry I know fanboys are distressed over this tragedy
@@duke9555are u slow u know the Angie’s intercept rating actually pretty plus jamming and everything warfare them middles are useless theirs a bunch that goes into protecting a carrier then just ships silly boy 😂😂😂😂 now go along
@@duke9555 Any possible threat is closely monitored by many assets. A US aircraft Carrier battlegroup also relies on allies to keep an eye on all potential belligerents and they often flaunt some of their capabilities.
We've seen in Ukraine what happens when neither side can achieve air superiority in a modern conflict. Aircraft carriers allow a handful of countries to place an air force basically anywhere in the world, meaning that handful of countries has a massive advantage in almost any conflict. Yes, it's possible for aircraft carriers to be sunk, just as it's possible for helicopters to be shot down, tanks to be blown up, and infantrymen to be shot. Doesn't mean any of them are "obsolete".
Yeah, exactly. I think too many people are hyper fixated on it being vulnerable that they forget that fighting is a 2 way range and everything is vulnerable to anything when in range.
Right. Just need to adapt to the new reality. It may not be easy, but can always be done
@@Mmjk_12 Firstly, I didn't say what "obsolete" meant, I said one thing that it _didn't_ mean. Secondly - missile frigates can't launch AWACS aircraft, can't maintain a combat air patrol, can't perform reconnaissance, or do any of the other thousand and one jobs an air force does. There is _nothing_ that can do the job of an aircraft carrier; until there is, the carrier will not be obsolete.
The fact China is building new carries is all we need to know, if carries were completely obsolete there is no way they would be doing it.
Get into warhammer 40k and trenches still live on !
I served aboard the USS Franklin D Roosevelt and have to say…. They are not only NOT obsolete but a powerful deterrent… besides… as soon as they figure out how to extend the range of the aircraft on board so that the ship can remain outside of coastal misses (that drone refueler will be perfect) we will be gold…
@MarkGardner66Bonnie, thank you for your service! Got a question for you, I noticed in the video @ 5:18 the ship conductor I believe was wearing a venzuelan flag patch on his right arm, are you guys allowed to wear a foriegn nation's flag on your uniform?
They haven't detered the houthi's.
This argument is why we need a fleet defender capable of doing all the things the f-14 did only upgraded. Fly twice as far, carry twice as much weight and fly twice as fast as the f-18 air frame.
I can imagine a couple easier (and possibly cheaper) solutions to the missile threat, and I'm not even an engineer (although close to it).
But as you said, the role of a carrier is so important that even with newer threats it likely won't be replaced soon.
I feel like a lot of the recent discussion of 'capital ships are obsolete' comes from the sinking of the Moskva, but that discussion neglects to mention some of the more unique factors that made the Moskva so vulnerable. It was out there alone, did not change its patterns over the weeks prior to its sinking, and the anti-air operating system was not very ergonomic so could have led to fatigue on the operators. Then there is the infamous maintenance report which I still don't know is real or not, but if it's real, it would explain how a ship with three layers of missile defense got hit by two non-stealth sub-sonic missiles. A combination of underestimating the enemy, neglected maintenance, and incompetence from command is what really sank the Moskva.
Aaaahh Vranyo.
Which is why the real question is, 'Is the Russian navy obsolete?'
@@TK199999 The answer is "Yes, because it's Russian."
@@lulzywizard7576in their defense, they do make the best artificial reefs
The Russian navy is mostly obsolete much off the Russian black sea fleet is over 25 years old and the Moskva was over 40 years old and was very outdated and even on her last major overhaul in 2009/10 that still meant she was obsolete in 2022
Couple of errors - Moskva wasn't hit by Ukranian drone ships, it was hit by Ukranian Neptune missiles, The USS Ford actually displaces around about 100,000 tonnes (you added a 0 by mistake)
Yeah I caught that too
Also showed a picture of HMS Queen Elizabeth instead of a Chinese carrier!
Technically true, but IIRC (not sure how much of the detail on the attack has been confirmed), there were suggestions that drones were used to fool and deplete Moskva's anti-missile defenses (eg CISW-style systems), thus creating an opening for the Neptunes.
Not sure how much of that success was due to deficiencies inherent to ship-based anti-missile defenses (eg. limited magazine sizes/ammo storages) as opposed to basic failures in Russian ship design and failures in crew training.
I thought it might be an imperial vs metric problem.
I thought - Well, he didn't say metric tonnes...
@@michaelccozens
Ultimately it turned out that pretty much zero of their weapons were actually functional.
Just a little correction for you mate the USS Gerald R. Ford displaces 100,000 long tons not 1,000,000 (million). Still she is a giant of the sea, compared to the USS Texas, a huge battleship from WWII,that was only 27,000 long tons, you get the idea how truly big a super carrier is.
It is hard to imagine a carriers size until you are standing on a pier with a carrier moored on one side and 3 or 4 ships moored on the opposite side.
Any particular reason, why are you comparing modern supercarrier with one of first american dreadnought battleship? USS Iowa would be more fitting, but of course it will be not such difference right? USS Texas was tiny. Lengtwise comparable to Ticonderoga class cruiser.
When I heard him say 1 ion tonnes I had to rewind to make sure I heard him right.
Never send a group pounder to do a brief about anything but which MRE has the best pudding..
.🙄
And Moskva was sunk by Neptune missile
@@tomascernak6112 It was just the first US battleship name that pop into my head.
Direct from a former US allied pilot, he loved the joint exercises as his flight wing would almost always “sink” the carrier, regardless of the defensive capabilities within the broader carrier group.
Did he tell you those exercises are made extra hard on the carrier and they have a lot of limitations then what they otherwise have in war.
@@mojothemigoI think the Fat Electrician recently had a video on how the US military handcuffs 'blue' forces to stress our men, making real combat that much easier (not that any exercise is equivalent to war). And honestly I would put many of our allies on a substantially higher level than our strategic adversaries. There's little shame in UK forces for instance doing well against us.
@@mojothemigo That is kind of the point. I know the American taxpayer rightfully takes a backseat in any potential shooting war with a great power but I'd be out in the streets calling for the head of Naval command if I found out the military lost a multi-billion dollar carrier and 5k personnel because they decided they could afford to be careless where they decided to place the beating hearts of US naval doctrine.
@@simonnachreiner8380 Of course, no argument. Awlhunt sounded like he was taking the exercises at face value and though it was a lot easier than it actually is to kill a carrier.
the defending force is always with an arm and a leg tied, with one eye poked out
After WWI and WWII there were military “thinkers” who said infantry had become obsolete…
Infantry and all tanks,machine guns, and artillery are obsolete because WW3 will be a nuclear war with the MAD option being used causing 25 years of nuclear winter . ☢️☠️ .
Same with tank multiple time even now in Ukraine also unlike those carrier can be use for humanitarian aid
@@USSAnimeNCC-tanks pretty much got pwned by drones, mines, atgm in Ukraine
It depends on what you mean. If you look at the Iraq war then they were right
America once thought fighter planes were obsolete, that all warfare would be fought using bombs and long range missiles. Then they got 1-uped by MiGs in Vietnam, losing many pilots because they were out maneuvered and vulnerable during runs. … thats when they decided to produce the f-15
Aircraft Carriers aren't obsolete because they really aren't a weapon unto themselves, they are force projection for the real weapons!
Japanese also thought battle ships were a projection for real weapons
They are an easy target to modern hyper-sonic missiles. There is absolutely no way these missiles will be stopped. Additionally, assuming they can't track and hit such a large, slow target is delusional. Only one missile is needed but imagine if dozens are launched at staggered intervals etc? You still can't see it???
@TheB00tyWarrior and yet the Japanese used carriers for nearly every victory. Not to mention basically every military still believed battleships were the heart of their force at the start of WWII. When carriers can be taken out regardless of defenses they'll be obsolete
An aircraft carrier is basically a weapons depot on a ship. If it blows up every rounds, bombs, missiles, fighter jets, helicopter will sink together with it.
@@TheB00tyWarriorThe Japanese were ahead of everyone in realizing that the aircraft carrier was the most effective combat ship available, a lesson the U.S. learned soon thereafter.
The SinkEx that was done to the USS America, took place over 25 days. It intended to test how much damage a Supercarrier could take as well as what vulnerabilities these ships have so that the in-development Ford class could be made even more resilient. After 25 days, they had to use internal scuttling charges to bring the Big A beneath the waves.
It might not sink it, but the kinetic energy slamming into a carrier would render most of the ships systems unworkable.
Then back to base to fight another day
Technically one of the reasons it took so long was by deliberate choice as it was a research exercise to improve the Gerald R. Ford class - the Navy could gather much more data if they didn't just press kaboom on enough firepower to send it to the fishes in some hours.
Regardless, even an old design was able to take it on the chin and I can imagine that $13b and 13y didn't yield a paper boat.
@@explosivehotdogs One needn't sink a carrier to deny its use to us just FUBAR it
@fladave99 The hypersonic threat against a moving target is overblown. The invisibility because of the plasma cloud is overblown.. You apparently get it
At the risk of being labeled a nitpicker, the Ford's displacement is not one million tons, but 100,000 tons. That little zero there makes a big difference, in this case. Other than that, great video!
It makes it float rather than sink to the bottom.
As a mariner, I did a major "SAY WHAT?" to that figure as well. Although I expected more than 100k.
In 2005, wargame exercises demonstrated the capability of a swedish gotland-class submarine to sink a US nimitz-class carrier. It didn’t mean that carriers were now suddenly obsolete, it just meant that the US had to relook at its anti-submarine warfare strategy to deal with stealthy diesel subs. Everything in military is always an arms race. Any weapon designed to kill aircraft carriers will eventually end up having something to counter it as well.
That also served as a wake up call to revive the ASW program which was minimized in 1999. I never understood why the moved away from it when they were so gung ho about Soviet attack boats for decades.
@@strykrpinoy According to some people when the Soviet Union fell it was the end of history. A lot of politicians believed that and congress controls spending.
Carriers are _routinely_ 'sunk' in exercises. That's because the exercises are designed to identify weaknesses in specific systems, not to just "let the good guys win" every time. That's how _Russia_ runs its exercises, not NATO. In NATO exercises, Bluefor routinely loses, because you learn best by failure.
Subs are the biggest danger to carriers. They can pop up anywhere, including right next to them. There's no defence against a salvo of heavy torpedos launched at close range. Sure, the sub will be toast afterwards, but so will the carrier.
Gotland class move at 5 knots on AIP, and lack the range to do deep water patrols. That exercise is only valid if a carrier happens to run right into a sitting sub while for some infathomable reason choosing to operate in littoral waters. Its very unlikely in the expansive pacific ocean.
I'm an ex- submarine guy and can tell you that aircraft carriers are ridiculously vulnerable to submarine attack. That said, they are great against opponents who don't have a modern submarine force and do have something of a chance if the attack subs in their task force are able to detect submerged enemies before they get in to firing range.
In surface warfare, even an overwhelming missile attack has little chance against a modern carrier task force and the cost of such an attack would be in the billions - so no, Iran can't send a bunch of speed boats out to overwhelm it.
My submarine got pictures of men and planes on deck. The Admiral did not believe us so we put a flare on the deck
'I'm an ex- submarine guy and can tell you that aircraft carriers are ridiculously vulnerable to submarine attack.' And so we pay you submariners to guard carriers against submarines.
I think that’s because I’m a real scenario the carrier would depend on its escorts to detect submarines and deal with them accordingly. Don’t think a carrier would be operating alone without counter measure against below surface attacks like Virginia class subs or destroyers.
If the soundtrack of Iran start banging, that carrier will be gg
@@AADP lol where’s the rest of the Iran navy again? Oh at the bottom of the sea 🌊
2 things I always say in this context. 1: Carriers weren't bullet proof in WW2 either, but we kept them around. 2: China is doubling down on aircraft carriers. Enuf said.
I read that they have canceled their aircraft carrier building program. Smart move.
@@dough6759 Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Russian engine tech they've appropriated leads to airframes having to launch with diminished payloads, combined with poor carrier landing performances. If their naval pilots were crushing it, they'd be posting countless videos of it as proof.
China will use their carriers against small nations incapable of launching a mass attack of anti-ship missiles nuff said
@@retiredbore378they had to borrow because at that point we only had 1 viable carrier in pacific service
Also Britain, France, India, and Russia, although China has the better carriers and planes.
Can the ESSM shoot down 300 modern anti ship missiles at once? Tom Clancy predicted this 30 years ago.
How about 1000+ missiles, and their decoys?
How about no.
I don't think you need that many missiles. There are some hypersonic missiles nearly impossible to intercept.
A military airport that can travel the world and carry dozens of highly capable aircraft is by no means obsolete. A infantryman or a f16 can both br destroyed but why that can do in the process makes it worth it.
Soon they gonna make em fly or some shit 😂 marvel fr
That military airport is also a weapons depot that carries tons of missiles, bombs, round and dozens of fighter jets, helicopter and transport planes. As the saying goes, never put all your eggs in 1 basket. A lone submarine ambusing the carrier strike group can sink the aircraft carrier like the simulated battle in 2005 when the Gotland-class submarine sunk the USS Ronald Reagan, a carrier worth a staggering $6.2 billion.
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko how is a lone submarine gonna get past all the destroyers. Small radar boats. Other submarines surrounding the carrier…..it’s a Fleet not just the carrier…..
@@theangrypenguin3014 That's what happened during a simulated battle between Swedish submarine and US aircraft carrier. They were shocked how the submarine quietly sneak passed the strike group to destroy the aircraft carrier. Go look it up, it's not a "what if" situation but a real simulated battle
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7koyeah but military exercises don’t reflect actual combat and the escorts weren’t allowed to use active radar in that exercise you know that right?
As President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick” isn’t any better said than with this vast amount of cold hard steel. Id argue that the range of our stealth fighters and older fuel tankers with no stealth ability (should be changing soon) is the only thing making the carrier obsolete in a war against another super power.
Stealth fighters don't have as long a range as non stealth
That's why the F15 EX exists
@@iii-ei5cv it's more like stealth fighters can't expand their range as much as non-stealth. clean F-35 have more range than clean F-16, but with drop tank F-16 range got further
I'd argue that B-2s should be reskinned, re-engined and left in stealth tanker capacity.
No shot we would ever have real full on warefare with China (or any other superpower) and NOT have it escalate to full on thermonuclear warfare. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs already made all other forms of direct conflict between superpowers obsolete back in the late 1950's, when ICBMs were developed.
The only thing that matters is having enough advanced modern nukes to prevent the enemy from shooting most of them down.
Everything else, that the US military does is either
A) to enrich the military industrial compex (the people -lobbying- bribing the politicians that approve more and more spending)
B) to flex on the haters (China)
C) for counterterrorism/ counterinsurgency/ peacekeeping, fighting against significantly less technologically advanced enemies
D) to give to Ukraine or Taiwan or any other country we want to help fight our "near peer" enemies.
The only reason we are paying to develop this "near peer capability", is because we don't want to give away our newest and best shit, so we need our second best, 10-20 year old shit to be good enough to fight China and Russia.
If they develop a 5th gen system, we need a 6th gen system, so that we can give away all of our old 5th gen systems to Taiwan without dipping into the good stuff.
Hypersonic missiles will make quick work of this carrier considering America has ZERO countermeasures against it. China also has 200x the shipbuilding capacity that America does.
Yes, aircraft carriers are big targets.
But who said they themselves were defenseless and are undefended by the rest of the fleet?
They are really not big targets they have lasers they can shoot missiles down from miles away. Also, a crew of submarines underwater protecting them
Bro, it's not Battlefield V. Even with the best air defense, it will eventually run out of missiles and rounds if it's attacked by a barrage of missiles. That's the whole point of SEAD
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7koyou have to overwhelm not on the carrier but it’s entire defense force. That’s like 8 destroyers. 3 cruisers and 5-7 submarines…..it would be less expensive to just send ships at that point
The first casualty of war is the planning. We have to wait and see on how China fights. The worst part is now that Russia is the enemy, they will definitely give recon info to China. We can’t even shoot them because that would mobilize them to war.
Most nations can't take out a single carrier group with their entire military, much less 2 or 3, which is what would be operating together in a hot war.
A friend of mine was working on the development of the phalanx gun. This was at general dynamics in Pomona Calif. they had an aluminum target that they were getting the system to track. Then a southern pacific train came by & the unit locked onto the rotating wheels of the engine. If anyone on the train was paying attention, I bet they would have had a very surprised look on their faces. This was sometime in late ‘70’s
When I was in Afghanistan there were f-18's in our airspace that had come from an American carrier. It was sailing off the coast of Pakistan. They were transiting over Pakistan, air to air refuelling in theatre, before supporting ground operations. Then they would get more fuel before flying back to the carrier. It’s insane that they essentially sailed a whole airforce in to the region. It would then be replaced with another carrier so that one was always operating. This went on uninterrupted for years. Only the American navy could keep that tempo up. Not to mention how much it must have cost!
You are right, but Americans were peerless in Afghanistan so their strength have not been tested in a war with someone who can take countermeasures in air and sea. It's alike watching Brazil at their best trashing Singapore in football match.
What would be more effective and vulnerable ? 1 supercarrier, or 5 smaller carriers, deployed in diverse locations ?
@@vijayarajan3276America doesn't have a peer. Look at Russia. The entire Russian fleet could be wiped out in 3 days.
If you say so.
all to fight a few goat jockeys with 80 year old rifles. 20 years 3 trillion dollars and got chased out of afghanistan like woman . What a disgrace! US hasn't won a war in 75 years
That Vulcan part "I am completely and mentally stable" was too funny.
Also, it was a couple anti-ship missiles that sunk the Moskva. Also, also, the Gerald R. Ford class carrier displaces 100,000 tons, not 1,000,000 tons. 100,000 tons is already insane enough (for now.)
Edit: I can understand the confusion for both. The Russians lost several ships to both drones and missiles this Summer. Also, numbers are hard. Numbers, in addition, words. Postedit-edit: All 11 combined would be over 1 million tons.
And the Moskva sank after many of it's systems failed or were accidentally incapacitated (like locking fire extinguishers because they were frequently stolen & sold off). Contrary to popular belief, it is hard to sink most warships.
Also he showed a UK Queen Elizabeth class carrier in place of a Chinese one....
@@liamanderson9104if there’s people who are corrupt enough to steal fire extinguishers from their own ship, there are also people who are corrupt enough to buy cheap (illegally obtained and potentially non-functional) fire extinguishers to comply with governmental safety regulations without having to spend much money.
The Moskva was sunk because it was a ship full of broken or insufficient equipment. It wasn't operating anywhere near its full stated capabilities.
The US military doesn't tend to suffer from those kinds of problems, at least not to such a devastating effect.
This is like saying you could break into a Bank Vault easily with the right tools and you could walk right in. While yes that is true, it is not even a bit taking into account the fact of all the defenses you have to get through to get to that door and then once you do, the amount of sheer force, that’s going to be utterly dumped on you if you ever tried. Great vid!
Good analogy.
The analogy doesn't work in the vicinity of Taiwan.
I can see drone carrier ships becoming a thing... smaller but with tons of high tech drones.
accompanied and protected by remote controlled ocean going swimming AA-drones or their equivalent as do destroyers/cruisers now ... an expendable protection screen controlled by the carrier
And I can See pin point direct energy weapons being used against those, drones, hypersonic missiles
dosent have to be high tech, low tech hulks filled with cheap drones could be effective in its own way
Turkey Is already building one of those bases on an helicopter carrier.
@@kamilpotato3764The concept of a rail gun can be used to puncture any ship or missile... including aircraft carriers
Saying Aircraft Carrier are obsolete because they are potentially vulnerable is like saying Goalkeepers are obsolete because they might concede goals. That's what defenders and the rest of the teams are for.
True
This!
They are not obsolete, but they are very vulnerable. In a hot war against China or Russia, i anticipate they will not be deployed aggressively. It costs less, much less, to build 1000 missiles than to build one aircraft carrier. And 1000 missiles can guarantee a carrier kill, no matter what defenses are available.
😂😂
For anyone who's never had the opportunity to see one, up close and personal...
Never think for a second that even an old aircraft carrier is obsolete. As long as aircraft can take off and land on them... they are BAD ASS.
I know this because I served on one of them. And the people who keep them ready are brashly phenomenal. They, like all of our service members, take their jobs seriously.
Thank you all for your service! You are appreciated far more than you could know.
Add to this the fact that US carrier crews have tens of thousands of years of combined experience, all recent, in using carriers during war.
Russia and China have no relevant corporate experience using carriers. They would be guessing what to do at first.
Battleships are also badass but they are obsolete. Aircraft carriers as they are right now I think are obsolete for peer or near peer conflicts, but of course like the video mentioned they are adapting. If we get really capable directed energy weapons that can take out swarms of drones and missiles, then aircraft carriers will be given new life. But from what I've heard that's not really on the table.. like one laser I saw in a recent video (not this channel) took 3 seconds to destroy an incoming missile. That's nice, but it's not going to help when China launches 100 missiles at the same time... most of them will get through. I think we're moving into an age where you have to be small, cheap, and distributed to be most effective. And it's perfect timing that we're getting stronger AI to go with that, because protecting people is part of what makes our weapon systems so expensive (e.g. tanks). Without worrying about a crew, it should all get cheaper and more capable at the same time.
Similar kinds of things might have been said about the Japanese battleship Yamator ----the biggest battleship ever built.
But it was sunk without a chance to get in the battle.
Suppose the Chinese launch 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 missiles at a US carrier? How many will get through to hit their target?
@@protorhinocerator142 Experience? Useful but not critical.
Today we do not use grandfathers to use drones, satelites, hypersonics, Quantum communications, etc.
US carriers are good for 3rd world countries but really useless in the age of hypersonic missiles .
A real superpower does not mean one has lots of carriers but rather its people, disciplined , organisation, production capacity, tech level and dedication ... are qualities not many countries have . China is truly one of them.
Just look how prepared they were when they were bio attacked with covid and in days detected , and in days organised brigades of doctors , and in days built hospitals, face mask by the millions...are just an indication.
Very well said....
Yeah. They are a valuable tool and an even juicier target. These ships can do all the things you say as long they are not at the bottom of the ocean. The defining problem with an AC is that as prey in war they and their group are merely floating castles and no castle has been able to withstand enough incoming projectiles until just one of them breaks through. The CG defense has to be 100% efficient, the enemy only ONE time in hundreds or thousands. No ship is unsinkable.
While you touched on some of the ways a carrier strike group can defend itself, I think more discussion could have been placed on the Navy's primary means of protection which is to interrupt the enemy's "kill chain". In order for an enemy to hit a moving target over long distances like a ship, the weapon must have the ability to continuously track the target vessel. And in order to do that, the weapon must be continuously updated as to where the target vessel is. The Navy has both classified and unclassified means of interrupting the enemy's kill chain by destroying or otherwise neutralizing the command and control of the missiles, the ability to use radar, the ability to use satellites, and / or the ability to communicate with the missile in flight.
On board weapons are really weapons of last resort if the enemy's kill chain can't be broken for some reason.
Yes I’m going into the “kill chain “ doctrine more in the Zumwalt video I’m working on , I think they’re updating the term to “kill web” to better illustrate the way the new technology works
''the ability to use satellites,...''
Defending the space, and dominating the space should be the highest priority.
@@hyokkim7726 The DDGs escorting our carriers can shoot down satellites. They have the best missile defense system in the world.
I think this is an oversimplification. Less of one than the video but still problematic. Interrupting kill chains is hard and getting harder. It may require things like like shooting down satellites which would be a massive political escalation because its a strong sign of nuclear warfare. It might also require hitting targets in mainland China. Again a giant political escalation.
Truthfully we don't have an independent way to verify how vulnerable carriers are because the needed information is classified(as it should be). It is also not a good idea to trust what the US military says. The US military has a long history of building massively expensive projects of little military value due to pressure from politics or the military industrial complex.
We desperately need better oversight organizations that have enough access to classified data to make reasonable determinations but that are also independent of the huge amounts of money involved. But videos about how to create such organizations and even about the organizations that currently exist are boring. But I do really wish videos like these were at least honest. I hate that this video by implication says the ships are not vulnerable rather than stating the obvious that we don't actually know because the data is classified.
@@mrvwbug4423 ''They have the best missile defense system in the world.''
Yes, they do.
''The DDGs escorting our carriers can shoot down satellites.''
They can as of now. If you're talking about RIM-161, they are guided by GPS, radar, and infrared.
But not the satellites to be coated stealth coating against radar, and infrared, especially radar-lock resistant stealth coating, without radar lock, radar guided missiles are useless; all very recently developed.
You can google Hahn Jae Won, stealth, or Jae Won Hahn, stealth.
No matter how strong you fleet is. You'll never beat the power of friendship
Ain't that the bitter truth
Absolutely correct,
As long as that friend is the US, China, or (maybe) Russia.
Wouldn't that be nice? Except not everyone wants to be friends.
Allies are everything
I agree. However America is Always READY For The "Friend" Thats Holding A Knife Behind Their Back. Sometimes, We Have Not been As Ready, But We Did Ok. AMERICANS ACTUALLY LIKE IT WHEN YOU PISS US OFF. We Stop Fighting Each Other And Start Kicking Ass.
T and P hit the nail on the head. Aircraft Carriers don’t operate alone and always escorted by its on strike group flotilla. The carrier is the dame of the ball, but there are other guards that ensures that she doesn’t get destroyed.
The only exception was just after 9 11 Enterprise for the only time in her life used all her reactors at once and her escorts could not keep up
The Yamato was the penultimate `Gun Club Mentality´ IJN battleship class. It was built without RADAR or satellites for targeting, it was too big to use, and too expensive to risk in the Solomons battles of 1942-3. It had the biggest guns and was the biggest expense to the Imperial Japanese Navy it had very little effect in the war. It also was a power projection concept that was pushed too far for its vulnerabilities.
Yamato and Musashi should have been used in the Solomons. From August 1942 through November 1942 in particular, those two warships could have made a huge difference for Japan there. Big mistake.
It was too big, too coarse to be called a ship. Indeed, it was more like a floating mass of steel.
The iron dome was effective until there were more offensive rockets than defensive rockets, a massive rocket spam accompanied by hundreds of drones flying in lower than the carrier deck could absolutely be a threat.
Yes, proving ground in Ukraine.. today the Capital of Ukraine is rocketed day & light with no defensive system in site
The Soviets already planned using saturation attack against carriers back in the 60's. That's why these carriers are only good against countries that cannot actually fight back. Iran, China or Russia surely could.
@@chriswong9158 Pretty sure they have layered air defence systems around Kyiv - Patriots and Iris-T etc....
US has recently mounted 300 killo watt lazers to all its war ships that will make mints meat of thousands of rockets which would also mean all our war which no country on earth wants all our war with US
@@bigglesharrumpher4139 Since Kiev regime made it a criminal offence to publish any war related pictures from Ukraine on social media, it is hard to estimate actual Ukrainian loses. You will get 10 years in prison for posting a picture of Russian missile hit.
Does China have the world's largest navy? Yes. But in perspective... China has the world's Largest Navy in the same way that Hot Wheels is the world's largest car manufacturer.
Cute but the Chinese don't want carriers they want and have hypersonics that are a grave danger to carriers.
@@locoman888 Our destroyers and battleships alone can destroy China's entire Navy. China has zero modern warfare experience, the United States has over 100 years. The United States defeated both the German Navy and the Japanese Navy at the same time. In the Atlantic and the Pacific!
When it comes to Naval warfare, China wouldn't last 6 months against the United States.
@@locoman888 No, China does not have "hypersonic missiles". China tends to lie about their military equipment. No one has independently verified that China has a hypersonic missile. China just like Russia made that claim. But as the world found out, with russia, their so-called hypersonic missile turned out to be nothing more than a modified cruise missile.
Never underestimate the enemy.
@@David-ic5nu Winnie the Pooh is firing all of his top generals and he's arresting CEOs of corporations. The two functioning aircraft carriers that China have had to be towed back to their ports by tugboats.
I'm not underestimating China.
Great to see TH-cam's best average infantryman covering the best and most important branch.
This video is about the Navy not, SPACE FORCE.
@@TRAZ4004 I forgot all about the Spacers.
🤔 the League of Women Voters?
Bold statement from a semen
In a war against a lesser adversary, an aircraft carrier may be a daunting weapon. But against another super power such as China, it’s simply a high value asset that they can focus on. Despite defensive missiles on board, they are of limited supply and no match against China’s seemingly bottomless supply. As portrayed in this video, a carrier would be used as a floating airbase in support of the hundreds of aircrafts that would fly to mainland China. It would take hours for a few hundred planes to take off, giving China its exact location and plenty of time to respond. China would immediately overwhelm the carrier with massive quantities of low cost missiles and exhaust its defensive missiles, then simply fire a couple of hypersonic to finish it off. This would not only wipe out an $80 billion asset, but several thousand military personnel and several hundred planes that are still on deck or otherwise out of fuel and have no base to return to.
Ships sink, ground-based missile launch platforms don't. The countries that can't overwhelm an aircraft carrier's defenses can be dealt with less expensively than with aircraft carriers. And the bit at the end of the video touting aircraft carriers' functionality in providing humanitarian aid was really pathetic.
China Can't build a road, bridge, or skyscraper without it flooding, collapsing, and or catching fire... I'm sure the US Navy is terrified of those mighty Chinese missiles...
Actually there is value to a carrier. Imagine a carrier carrying planes that can launch 1000 mile+ hypersonic missiles. Basically you can draw a massive 2000 mile circle around the carrier as your effective combat range. The real issues right now is that US is behind on hypersonic missiles.
@@henli-rw5dw Hypersonic missiles can be launched from anywhere and strike any target on earth. No need for planes or carriers to launch them. Carriers are 19th century war machines, retrofitted to fight a 21 century warfare. Once their locations are detected by satellites, they can be swamped by tens of thousands of suicide drones. Carriers are useful in intimidating second or third tier countries, but sitting ducks against superpowers.
@@henli-rw5dw Why on earth would you want to build carriers in order to launch hypersonic missiles instead of from much less expensive long-range aircraft or ground bases or get much the same functionality from ballistic missiles?? E.g., the US has two carrier groups in the eastern Med at present. How would planes with hypersonic missile carrying capacity add much to their capabilities? Don't just wave your arms-- be specific.
Carriers were always vulnerable. That is why carriers always had 10-50 support ships defending them since carriers were invented. They are worth it.
For the sake of accuracy, if you zoom in on the Newport News shipyards, you don't see two Ford class carriers under construction; you see ONE Ford class and the decommissioned CVN-65 USS Enterprise. If you go into 3D mode you can clearly see the "65" on the super structure. (And that it's not placed as far back as the Ford class design.)
During the Vietnam War, I was stationed on the USS Coral Sea, CVA-43. There were 47 other ships in our task force, which included every type of ship you can imagine. When people say that these ships are the safest place to be, they are correct. It would be incredibly difficult to stick one of these ships.
Yet alone, Swedish submarine sank the Ronald Reagan multiple times in 2005 and exercises outside of West Coast. Yes it’s not past the carrier, strike group and all the screening ships etc. and torpedoed the carrier to hell. and yes, even managed to sneak it back out without being detected go to that type of sub. The strike group are vulnerable.
@@volvo145 ... You really should read up on those exercises before spouting that BS. The Carriers were severely limited in what they were allowed to do to defend themselves.
@@TheStephaneAdam People don’t understand that training exercises are for training, not for predictive simulation purposes.
@@volvo145And yet, it was a training exercise. Good thing the Swedes are allies and better hope the Swedes don't get pulled into a hot conflict.
@@Nesstor01 Dude. Stop. You're giving me second-hand cringing so bad it's painful.
Do your own serious research instead of relying on "alternative" news sites serving as mouthpieces for the Kremlin.
Why does is it always either or with people. "Aircraft carriers are so vulnerable and expensive!" "Aircraft carriers are invincible!"
No, they are not invincible, they can be destroyed, but they are also hard as fuck to destroy why do you think China had to put like 50% of its RND budget just to have some form of self defense against these super carriers.
There are only 2 countries on Earth who could sink one Russia and China. And Russia is a maybe maybe not tbh.
13:45 im glad the Navy has been trying to improve Enlisted Berthings. I served from 2003-2010 and the berthings make or break an assignment. My first berthing was a 100+ man on USS Nimitz & my second was an 80 man on an older LPD and it too really sucked, but after I made 1st class and was moved to thr 9man first class berthing life underway was way better.
I have no idea whether new aircraft carriers are a worthwhile investment or not, but I had expected to hear an analysis of the threat from below.
In simulated combat between a single Swedish sub (the HSMS Gotland) and the entire USS Ronald Reagan taskforce, the Swedish sub was never detected and could deliver a simulated lethal blow against the carrier at every attempt. I don't know what capabilities carriers have acquired since and what capacities potential enemy subs may have, but this kind of threat is definitely something worth taking into account.
Swedish subs are state of the art and far more advanced or capable than those of many other Navies.
The Royal Navy often "Sink" US Aircraft Carriers in exercises but NATO knows where all the Russian Subs are at all times. If Sweden were to go to war with America then HSMS Gotland and her chums would be taking on more than one US Aircraft carrier battlegroup.
@@sichere I'm not imagining a war between Sweden and the US. I'm just saying that since that kind of technology has proven to be highly effective against carriers, it should be worth considering when you discuss pros and cons of carriers, whether any conceivable foe has that capability right now or not.
@@beardmonster8051 There are no foes with that capability or balls. Operating Submarines is an art the West excels at. and they are constantly developing and adapting them with allies to keep it that way.
The Royal Nay task force lost some major ships during the Falklands conflict in1982 but kept the carriers just out of reach from the enemy and remained highly effective.
Doesnt the csg get reduced capability during these tests aswell, even though i understand the idea a sub has great capabilities, its gotta find the US fleet and i assume at that point it wouldnt be able to do or say much without being noticed. I also dont want to buy the idea that “the US wont be at war with Sweden” although i firmly believe that is true, i prefer to think that an adversary (or even a US) sub can get into a firing solution. Thats the alarm, however it eventuated. What we dont know anything about is what the ships behave like after a hit, and how many ships have to be out of active service before the carrier is exposed. Yet with a max of 220 sorties per day one could presume that more aircraft would get into the air to fill the early warning aspects. Plus any rescue options.
@@f1reguy587 You can read about the exercises yourself. They took place from 2005, and the US was alarmed enough by the results to hire the sub for an extended period of time to try to figure out ways to counter it. At the time, the anti-sub escort ships didn't stand a chance.
They were ALWAYS big floating targets...
That is why they are ALWAYS part of a fleet so it can protect it.
To be fair, I think the doctrine of the aircraft carrier group is very good because of their flexibility & modularity.
(Both the elements of the group protecting it & the Aircraft carrier itself)
Yes you are correct on both points in my view. It has been the case that a nuke from a ship, submarine, aircraft or missile has been able to take out a carrier for many decades. They got sunk on a regular basis in WW2 by conventional means but for sure they were very useful.
A carrier in WWIII, is about as useful as a battleship in WWII. Orbit is the new high ground.
I believe space is every bit as vulnerable as the ground, probably more so. In WW6, (3 if you like) the amongst the first things to go are satellites and the mess caused may make it impossible to relaunch and maitain up there new ones for some time.
All warfare involves the struggle between defence and offence. We do not know how good defence against hypersonic missiles will become but to be sure it is a priority in research. The Tank was obviously obsolete in 1916, close to useless in fact but it's still here.
People they a thing call super sonic rocket Russian has it so do the Chinese U S is working on one but don't have it yet there no way to defend against it so any ship is just sitting duck don't care how many carrier you got this is not 1943 or 2019 it whole new game!
@@SHOE53 The HYPERSONIC weapon has to be accurate and long enough ranged to hit a moving ship in the middle of the ocean. They don't have either capability yet. You don't seem to have noticed the Russian one does not work very well in an actual war. However the American Patriot System is working and improvements on it are under developement.
The answer to the question is "no".
America is the only country in the world that can project power globally on multiple fronts. They can also establish air superiority in any battle scenario and has the record to prove it.
The US is also developing laser and hypersonic missles of their own and their carrier groups are the most advanced in the world.
The carriers are not a waste of money. The current method of designing and building ships is. Between the design flaws found here, the littoral and Zumwalt class ships…something has to change on a fundamental level
I suspect you think you're saying some Thucydides didn't say 2 500 years ago. I don't think you are.
@@michaelccozens I’m not even sure what you are trying to say
@@ADHDgonewild7 Did you try to find out? You can look up "Thucydides" on the device in your hand.
If aircraft carriers are obsolete, why does everyone seem to want one? Russia clings on to its one remaining carrier even if it painfully needs to be scrapped and keeps promising a new one. China wants to build a fleet of them to rival the US. Even Turkey and South Korea are planning to build their own. Aircraft carriers are platforms for other systems; until you can replaced that platform that does the same job, carriers are staying.
China has no purpose for a carrier. They don't have the duty of keeping global free trade open.
If China were stupid enough to use a carrier against the US or its allies it would be sunk quickly. They can't afford a carrier group.
Xi sees a big toy and thinks it's the answer. He should really look into WHY the USA uses carriers and not stop at realizing they exist.
Just like the 20s and 30s, when every great nation wanted Battleships for status. Despite the fact they were already obsolete by then.
Carriers are no more vulnerable to being sunk now than they were in the past. Carriers fight as a carrier group which is composed of various submarines, escorts and of course various interceptor aircraft. Aegis destroyers can shoot down enemy satellites, shoot down missiles, radar aircraft can see them coming, interceptor aircraft can shoot them down. Its kind of like SAM missiles in the Gulf War, once the Iraqis turned on their radar they got a missile fired at them.
I imagine the opposition to a carrier would also be a task force of some sort, not sure what they put in the PLAN battlegroups today.
Like some mix of long-range shore rocket artillery, a small number of chinese carriers of their own, land-based naval attack planes. I guess the faster the air contingent of the carrier can establish air superiority, the better. Like the opening fight would be between attack aircraft sent from respective group.
@@SusCalvinYeah even the Chinese PLAN know the usefulness of a carrier as they are adding to their carrier fleet.
Me thinks they want their Type 055 for air defense and to throw a lot of ASCM and ASBMs at US carriers while their own carrier air wings clean up what's left.
It wouldn't be easy to destroy a carrier, but it's getting easier as time goes by not harder.
all fun n game till a satellite drops one directly from above
@@papi-sauce the orbital mechanics to pull that off unnoticed are literally astronomical…
No way 3 CWIS would defend a carrier against a missile swarm. Sure they'll get the first 5-10 but if Iran sends 100, the CWIS will run out of ammo.
Did two tours on a carrier as a LDO. Finding a Carrier Battlegroup in the open ocean is hard. We made an EMCON transit (radiating zero radars and depending on the E-2's for our eyes) from San Diego to the Philippines and the Russians never found us and they launched two Bears every day looking for us. We finally radiated our search radars two days out from the PI and the bears flew to us. Even with RORSATS it's hard to locate a CVBG.
Russians don't have military satellites. China has. Russia is nothing in terms of mil capabilities, just a lot of noise
Also I would suspect that a CVBG in wartime would be substantially beefed up vs the force projection groups we see.
I always thought carriers had Russian civilian spy ships following them “telltails”.
Plus them being easy to see from satellites due to their wake and TH-camrs giving away their area of operations on a daily basis. Sure that all might change in time of war, but wars these days are fought by proxy and any direct attack from Russia or China would start with a surprise strike on the carriers within reach, conventionally or unconventionally.
Carriers run out of avgas in a week.
Computers on satellites can easily find them.
When I found out the Nimitz class had communication cables that would be cut by the watertight doors,I figured it was time for new carriers. Still didn't answer the question about a swarm of missiles.
How many have forgotten about the 1980's Islas Malvinas War. How carrier(s) turn at first site so call missiles.
I've heard it said that there is nothing more expensive than a second best air force. I guess that applies to naval air power too. But just because it is feasible that a carrier can be destroyed doesn't mean we are indifferent to the possibility. Let's do everything we can to protect our carriers.
Said casually that it was 6 times faster and cheaper to construct Noah's arc as though it was real.
Carriers are the linchpin of a task force that has multiple layers of defense and various flexible offensive capabilities.
It sounds like the "sail away" cost of a Ford class is $8B, which is far more attractive than the $13B for the lead ship.
Since WW3 is currently underway I hope the navy continues to operate all its Nimitz ships and bring them all to a high level of readiness. And then keeps them in active reserve for another quarter century.
Nobody else has invest anywhere near the effort into carriers that we have. A few have put effort to developing weapons to counter them, but we’ve also been doing the same thing. Our biggest vulnerability is from within, not from whatever firepower or enemies can scrape up. Anyway, carriers, fast heavily armed frigate and destroyers, and silent subs.
Believe the British have put more into the development of Carriers. I mean with the VTOL, the slanted runway. They even had the first carrier. HMS Argus.
@@EnglishScripterno one has more research into carriers than the us but id say China in the next 3 years will have more and better carriers than the Uk
and they still cant stop a single Russian Khinzal missile
China gets all there technology from Old British and Russian Carriers. I doubt it.@@cinemasurge1851
@@scottfay3553lmao ...remember at Ukraine? Your Khinzal missile just over hype! Got shotdown by some old patriot missile. Lol
Don't forget carrier protection has come a long way from 1982 when the Royal Navy flew helicopters off the bow and stern of Invincible and Hermes transmitting a carrier sized radar signal.Isnt the cost doubled when you add in the missile cruisers and destroyers.
Well, there is no question as to the force an Aircraft-carrier brings to the fight. However, for 1/20 the cost of an Aircraft-carrier the Chinese can build how-many-hundreds of those Carrier-killer missiles ... and it only takes 'One' of those to kill or completely disable an aircraft-carrier ... (Of course sinking one of our AC, would mean we are deep in a war, ... and just having one or several of our Carriers in your neighborhood is a strong deterrent against any war ... Keep building them)
The funny thing about ney Sayers is the fact that the reason China is focusing so much on anti carrier weaponry, is because of how much of a threat the carrier imposes against china itself. That alone speaks volume for the reason of having our carriers still. There will always be a threat to them, and that threat will increase, but in a carrier group, the carrier is well protected...
Also chy-nuh is building it's own super carriers, so they think the idea is valid.
I think the point is aircraft carriers are only effective as an offensive weapon if they can get their aircraft in striking range of the enemy.
Because China is focusing on tactics to keep aircraft carriers out of range of China is not an argument to keep putting money and resources into aircraft carriers. What's the point of building $12B ships carrying another $4B in aircraft if they can't get within range of their targets? There is an argument to be made that aircraft carriers are essential as defensive weapons however their ability to project power is diminsihing.
Think about it from the enemies perspective ... they don't care how much of a threat the carriers are in theory as long as they keep them away from their shores they pose no threat at all. That's all they have to do ... they don't have to sink anything. Look at China's navy from the Chinese perspective ... they've built the largest fleet in the world complete with aircraft carriers but they have no overseas bases or maintenence facilities ... they can't project power ... their fleet is designed to keep US carrier groups from getting close enough to China to do damage.
@@davekeating5867 - The effective range of most anti ship missiles is 350 miles. The F18 super hornet one way is about 500 miles, or over 1000 miles round trip, which can be extended with additional tanks mounted underneath, obviously this means that the carrier has better capabilities than the anti ship missiles.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, the carrier is almost always a part of a carrier group, which includes missile destroyers, amongst many other types of ships, making it's capabilities and lethality that much more. The carrier is a mobile military base parked in any part of the ocean deep enough to support it, this is a force multiplier and well worth the money it costs to build and maintain them.
Just think of it this way, the Dolittle raid was a perfect example of the threat a carrier poses. While we aren't launching bombers from carriers today, each fighter has the capability to essentially be a small bomber, and with the advance weaponry we have today, no nation is safe from the possible damage that could be caused by the carrier.
@@thomasrodgers2291 You make it sound so easy. You would be correct in your assumption that an F-18 outranges most Chinese anti-shipping missiles ... and that would be a big advantage if the Chinese only had anti-shipping missiles to defend themselves with.
While the US navy operates carrier groups with air defences the PLN also has a navy with air defences as well as more than a thousand fighter aircraft at their disposal and the F-18 isn't a stealthy target ... especially with a pair of external fuel tanks under it's wings.
You claim that a US F-18's outrange Chinese anti shipping missiles ... it does in most cases however here are the ranges of China's current most potent anti shipping weapons:
YJ-18 submarine launched cruise missile with a range of 330 miles
DF-21 ballistic missile 930 Miles
DF-26 ballistic missile 1850 miles. All are nuclear capable.
There may be others they've never shown us as well as glide vehicles launched from ballistic missiles like the one seen flying around the earth a few years back and the Chinese may be fudging their numbers ... an optimist would say they're inflating their numbers but a realist would say they're giving you a false sense of security.
@@davekeating5867 Expect China will take the first shot using the element of surprise, same as Putin did. They have to. Once they establish their intent and the US Military is weapons free, it's going to get ugly for the Chinese as the sheer force of America's combined arms capabilities lands on their head.
I have confidence in the US Forces' ability (including Space Force) to systematically dismantle defensive and offensive systems, C2 nodes and critical infrastructure, and then press the enemy with conventional gear.
What a lot of folks omit is that the US won't be alone in this. Australia for one. I can also envision Indonesia and other SE Asian countries will jump in (again) and take the fight to second tier platforms like Chinese Coast Guard and the gaggle of civilian vessels will finally get it shoved up their arse.
I believe a correction to be made at 18:18 The Ford Class carrier definitely does not have a displacement of million tons. Instead it's somewhere around 100,000 long tons. Unless you are referring to the addition of the displacement of all the Ford class carriers.
Awesome video though!
I too noticed this. My gf asked me if I was going to leave a comment. I said nah, somebody's got me
@@DavidBowiesCock Yeah bud. I was a bit perplexed when I heard "million tons" because my country's Aircraft Carrier has a displacement of about 50,000 tons, making it seem very tiny, too tiny. Had a laugh when I checked the actual dimensions online.
@@adityadahiya3719It's cumulative tonage
1 million tons, that makes it sound like the US has a Star Wars Star Destroyer parked somewhere🤣
Amazed by how far this channel has grown
Lockheed Martin and usa mic paying youtube big money for promotion.
why? since SMA this channel has been flooded with MIC money
I served as a boiler technician on the USS Ranger, CV63. At that time I was informed that the this carrier set a speed record of over 50 knots. I'm not exactly sure if this is true. If so, perhaps the power of oil fired boilers used to propel these smaller carriers out perform the nuclear powered steam propulsion of this behemoth. Perhaps size matters or the Ranger is a special case. I saw a different type of screw on it (Ranger) when in dry dock at the PSNS which didn't look anything like the depicted screw of the JRF.
I refueled the Ranger numerous times from the USNS Kawishiwi as a rig captain. You may have been aboard her then... mid 1980's?
And as a 3rd Mate I had a conventional carrier, I believe it was the USS Constellation or Kitty hawk, designated on our radar doing over 50 Knots for @ 10 mins in the Indian ocean...so yeah. I believe you!
The length of the hull is a limiting factor in top ship speed. The conventional carriers I listed above were @ 1000 feet...so the main limiting factor for them is the power plant. I believe the Ranger was smaller, but I know she was damn fast to. The Ranger was the Carrier we worked with the most.
The 30 knots is likely a disclosed and the CSG generally transits at speed comfortable for all participating vessels.
The level(s) of organization required to conceive, procure, manufacture and sail is beyond amazing! Thanks for this!
and yet, the energy to conceive, procure and manufacture could not be better use for mankind.
America will soon have three "Ford Class" carriers and yet, not a single high speed rail system in site in US. Wow..
@@chriswong9158 not entirely true, high speed rail in Florida and other projects ramping up. Late, but it's beginning to happen.
Instead of sending 70 planes we could send 10,000 drones to protect you.. I think the time of ships is limited and probably a waste of money.
Then drone have range
Which carrier also would take care of them for range
I think whenever somebody says "X piece of equipment is obsolete because it's too vulnerable" just ask them what out there can perform that role but better or how has the battle space changed to make the capability not important. An average infantryman has been vulnerable since before agriculture but until we figure out battle droids we still need guys taking trenches and buildings and just going around doing all that fiddly stuff humans can do
thing is, now there is nothing to perform that role, carriers are just a big target on a war against china, they can't perform a role there.
carriers still can project power against africa and other parts of the global south tho (unless russia arms them with anti ship missiles not far fetched after ukraine)
@@somedudeonline-i3t so the change will be in tactics. We're already seeing just that fighters with longer ranges drone refueling. Better ewar. The assumption that the piece of equipment is invulnerable is the problem. It's like infantry. We've seen infantry change how they fight repeatedly and we problem aren't at the final evolution. New threats pop up. The enemy can hit them from further away. But that role hasn't changed. And so far we don't have a way to mobly deploy fighters. A carrier can just show up and launch them vs having to forward deploy them to islands which are already super dialed in targets. A carrier can be anywhere
The capabilities argument doesn't make sense in a time of war. How much capability does the missile ship the moskva have? When fighting a war, attrition, logitstics, and economics will come in to play. The role of an infantryman has changed, his effect on the battlefield has changed, his value has changed. Aircraft carriers are for peace time projection, a near peer with several options to take them out, is going to take them out of play. The argument isn't that we don't want the capabilities, it's we want to diversify to sustain and protect those capabilities in a cost effective manner.
@@awesomeocelot5379 the moskova shouldn't have sank. It sank because the Russians had done everything wrong already. Their sensors were shit. Their emergency systems were shit. Most of it wasn't in good working order. Carriers don't deploy alone and no American carrier is going to be in that state of disrepair.
We agre the moskova sank but does that mean that missile cruisers are obsolete? No. If a helicopter is shot down does that mean helicopters are obsolete?
What is the better option for quickly deploying massed air power? Relying solely on land bases won't be enough. Obviously next gen air force fighters are trying to have longer range but it doesn't matter if your craft gets killed on the ground. So there's also an arms race when it comes to surface to air missiles and all that fun stuff. Seems like the solution is protect them better. Carriers replaced battle ships because they could command larger areas of sea. Not because they were invulnerable
The Moskva was hit by two US made harpoon missiles that the US gave to Ukraine. We just told them to say it was their own Neptune missiles.
In a war against China we would use the B-21 Raider, cruise missiles (regular and anti-ship), Space Force assets, and F-35's flown from Japan/South Korea. Anti-sub operations would have to be conducted before the US carriers could get close enough to China so the carriers would not be the first to fight.
In the 70's we had many different aircraft, each with it's own mission. So we would have 90 aircraft on our carriers. Now, they typically carry 40 F-18's, 2 C-2, 2 E-2, and 2 helo's but with the smaller F-35 a carrier could hold over 100 aircraft.
Most people claiming that modern aircraft carriers are vulnerable targets seem to forget that a carrier forms the core of a carrier battle group, the carrier doesn’t have to rely on its own defences except as a last resort, there are destroyers, frigates, submarines, the carriers own aircraft, and possibly even cruisers, providing a defensive screen for the carrier.
Just like battleship back in day before WW2
Hence capital ships. Even in sci-fi, they meant they were the commanding ships & projected power. But they are usually escorted because they aren't invincible. Probably the only times the aircraft carrier sails alone is when it is delivered, restationed, or on its way to be scrapped. And that is a high 'maybe' on the first two.
Tell that to a 300km/h supercavitacion torpedo with a electrical initial stage, that will launch so close of the aircraft carrier that will have no chance
@@internetisinteresting7720 Which country has a) such a torpedo and b) a vessel stealthy enough to get through all the screening ships and submarines to get close enough to launch it?
@@internetisinteresting7720 No enemy sub will ever get in range to launch one. Russian subs are slow and not terribly stealthy, Chinese subs are junk, both are only a real threat in their own littorals where they can use their diesel boats effectively (diesel boats are generally quieter than nuke boats). Russian SSNs are slow and easy to track, Chinese SSNs are a joke, relics of the 1970s with notoriously leaky reactors and can only stay out at sea for like a week.
Honestly, i think foreign area denial abilities have really advanced, and carriers need a carrier group advancement. Longer range missiles, new aircraft with longer range and best sensors, unmanned/minimally manned surface ships that carry more defense and attack missiles to protect the carrier, and UAVs as loyal wingmen to help multiply the force of our manned planes. That will keep the carrier group relevant.
Additionally, perhaps we may see new ship groups, or reorganizing our ships into different groups, to better counter the type of threat faced. Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out there. The perceived threat has been rapidly changing over the last decade (non-state to major state) and the change of pace in technology easily outstripping military timelines, it's going to require big expensive changes to our military. I just really hope unmanned vehicles actually work out for the capabilities we desire. We can't build or afford 350 ships with 200-400 crew. So our only way forward is cheaper, smaller unmanned ships to augment. Fingers crossed
Every single item on your list is already happening. Every one of them is an ongoing process where the DOD improves every element every time they figure out an improvement.
Now compare what we have to what anyone else has... and it looks like we're still way ahead of our competitors here.
@@markpukey8 The fact that the US is actively testing and trying various 6th gen fighter platforms while our nearest potential enemies are still struggling with what we figured out 35+ years ago means we are lightyears ahead. it really is crazy how far ahead the US is in the ability to actively project power.
@@coopercartmilldon't be arrogant. That will get you dead every time. I'm a USN vet and I don't propose to think what the navy can or can't do. That goes for thd DOD or the Pentagon. By the way the US military likes to be 1 gen ahead of the pack.
@@coopercartmill Every time I start to doubt what you say, I think about the first Gulf War and President Bush (the smart one, not his idiot son) casually letting the world see our Stealth Fighters and Stealth Bombers.
I was a young adult watching CNN at the time and I recall the "HOLY SHIT! WE HAVE THOSE???!" feeling. And a few years later realizing that if I felt that way... how did the Russians, the Brits and EVERYONE ELSE feel when they saw how easily we could penetrate their anti-air defenses if we wanted to?
This does not even consider the video footage of precision guided munitions going INTO OPEN WINDOWS to kill our targets, and the data on the effectiveness of American bombing runs versus historical norms. We spent 5x and much per bomb, but hit with more than 10x the effect of any prior air attack. So the richest nation in human history was able to kill you cheaper than you can kill us.
My HOLY SHIT moment must have been felt in every national capital on the planet. God only knows what we have hiding in the dark in 2023....
I keep thinking of the battleships Musashi and Yamato for the time they were The most expensive ships ever built. They were huge incredibly powerful yet what seemed like a good idea at the time soon became a mistake.
For now they seem invulnerable but we are talking about what the technology will be like in 20 years.
Modern antiship missiles have long been commonplace. Sure the carrier is big but it is deceptively fast and the ovean is vast so good luck tracking yhe varrier
@@whybndsu I agree with you good luck tracking I carrier today but who knows what the technology will be like in 20 years. 20 years ago I could never have imagined walking around with a very powerful computer, phone, camera, light, ie. Smart phone in my pocket.
Nailed it !!!
@@whybndsu Become familar with the term "saturation attacks"
The Yamato class were designed and built at the end of the big gun era. The irony that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor signaled the era of aircraft as the primary danger to ships is not lost on naval planners. The Yamatos didn't use that data sufficiently. Also, the tech to counter aircraft effectively was not available.
People also forget when they talk about China that the Chinese Navy encompasses all of their vessels, including local patrol vessels.
They never factor in the United States Army or the Coast Guard
In one instance one submarine got past our defenses in an exercise. I don't think we're unbeatable without loosing a few defenders if 1000 missiles fired within the span of 30 minutes. But we can only claim with small conflict, we are unbeatable.
It was a training exercise with the US purposely put at a disadvantage. We don't learn anything by winning all the time.
I think the discussion isn't really between carrier or no carrier, but few very large carriers or many smaller carriers integrated into a combined strike group. More expensive per capicity, more distribution of assets.
small carriers have disproportionately low sortie rates for their size, less efficient. if you can protect a big carrier you always want that.
How small are we talking? Because here in India, we have two 40,000 ton medium carriers with a third on the way, but our Navy is still hell bent on at least a 75,000 ton heavy carrier ASAP. So what is the max USA can do? Three 75,000 ton heavy carriers instead of two 100,000 ton supercarriers?
FYI,
Light Carrier (1 fighter squadron)
Medium Carrier (2 fighter squadrons)
Heavy Carrier (3 fighter squadrons)
Supercarrier (4 fighter squadrons)
Assuming around 12 fighters per squadron.
I don't think there is much of a difference in between targeting a medium or heavy carrier and a supercarrier. They present about a similar sized target. Difference is that the supercarrier can produce a much denser aircraft bubble around it, which smaller carriers struggle to do. A heavy carrier might be a sweet spot, but go below that and you are compromising on capability more than the advantages you get out of it.
@@death_parade basically you've got cube square law dictating that bigger carriers are more efficient, but constitute a single target. I don't really think ANY carrier is small enough for targeting to be a question of size instead speed of the target. As is said in video the protection of the carrier group is largely the group not the carrier, so if your bubble is absolutely invoulnerable you want it as big as prac Hej hejtical, if you consider the possibility something might get through maybe spread the same air group over two so that if you take one hit you still have somewhere to land. The air wing costs more than the carrier, and the support group is pretty expensive too. It's a trade off, I don't know where the ideal is, I suspect no-one does untill there is a shooting war. And then only what the ideal WAS.
The ground based laser systems we currently have can intercept missiles at the speed of, well, amplified light. I think that a nuclear powered carrier has enough power to run one. I am sure the thing has been designed for just such upgrades. We already have vehicle mounted lasers and as an engineer working for Raytheon we shot down an ICBM with a laser mounted on an airplane-- 13 years ago.
Don’t they have an EMP pulse gun?
LOL
The airborne laser in a modified 747 program was cancelled because it could shoot down the ICBM in the launch phase only if the 747 was flying 1000 miles inside Russian territory during launch. And none of the modern lasers are as powerful as the old chem laser on the 747. Disabling a missile in launch phase takes 1000 times less laser power than in the terminal phase. The lasers the navy are mainly designed to blind IR seekers on incomming munitions. THey can also destroy plastic drones.
The problem with Laser Defense systems is that you can only fire once or twice in the same heading before the heated air starts to diffuse the laser, compromising its damage potential. And thats just a basic physics limitation. You can’t really get around it without fundamentally changing the weapon platform. Plasma has potential but has yet to solve the propulsion->sustainability hurdle. Basically, a plasma based “laser” would look like a piss trail parabola. A directed plasma projectile has to find a method to accelerate from its gun barrel without damaging it. Using magnetic materials and the railgun tech could be the answer but I have yet to hear anything on that front, its just my speculation.
Chris, I enjoy your videos and I watch them every time I get a chance. Which is why I feel the need to correct you on one thing. The Moskva was not sunk by drones, it was sunk by two Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship missiles. I hope this helps and thanks for all the awesome content!
P.S. The Neptune is a radically modified Soviet Kh-35 missile. It was developed closely in collaboration with our Western allies. So you could definitely say that the US played a big role in sinking the Russian Black Sea flagship.
Correction, Chris was correct, for those two Neptune anti-ship missiles boats were remote operated aka drones.
No it was sunk by the British SBS. Not Ukraine every one with the Brain capacity off a stick insect knows this.
@@chriswong9158wat?
One Nimitz (/Gerald R Ford) class carrier can carry more strike/fighter aircraft than many nations have in their entire air force. And the USN has how many (super)carriers? Somehow I just don't think those kind of numbers are going to be obsolete in the foreseeable future.
An infantryman can get killed by a single rifle bullet; I don't see anyone claiming the rifle made infantry obsolete.
plus we might get to see shit like this 4:02 happen for real which would be fkn funny.
The funny thing about carrier battle groups is that they move around. They are hard to find and harder to hit.
And the battle group is basically death to any enemy ships, aircraft, missiles and subs without about 1000 miles of it. Enemy aircraft and aerial drones would be jammed out by EWAR and shot down before they ever detected the battle group on radar. Small boats and drone boats would never get past the destroyers even if they could get within visual range. Subs and undersea drones would be detected and destroyed long before they could get into torpedo range of the battle group. Enemy spy satellites would be jammed out by EWAR if not shot down
During world war 2 yes.. but now, ehhh
There is nothing hard to find about CBG's today. Everyone and their brother with access to satellites knows where they are in real time.
Not in the days of satellites
Any carrier group or battleship group that goes into expedition is always shadowed by an enemy submarine.. Not to.mention the signal ships that double as part of a fisheries fleet.
World of warships has taught me this:
Carriers are weak if being caught unexpected but the fear they create are no jokes
In that game, the side that lost CV first have 90% chance to lose the game.
@@highpriestoftheflyingspagh8071Video games can give a good general idea of concept, more so if they're a simulation, which world of warships is more arcade like(sadly), just cause your old and outdated doesn't mean that video games don't have a use in talks such as this.
@@highpriestoftheflyingspagh8071 I did say general mate, also as said wow is arcade (meaning less accurate) .Also no I didn't serve that's a service my old man and grandparents hold the honor of not me. It may annoy you that people do use games as reference, especially when its not simulation based, which offer much more accurate info. But they can and have been used for training, and for ptsd interestingly enough. The specifics of naval combat, logistics and capabilities is something that one would have to be boots on the ground for, or boots on deck in this case. I never mentioned games (especially WoW) as being a 1:1 just, and I repeat, a general proof of concept. Yes they do Remotely provide insight. Edit: removed unnecessary sentence.
But if they are escorted by a couple destroyers and cruisers they are incredibly dangerous
Also no you couldn't write much to convince me otherwise, because I've had these talks with many veterans from various branches and service periods. Perks of being a sons member I guess.
In a US navy study after ww2 it was discovered that a Japanese naval special unit of divers was trained to attack US carriers using ju jitsu techniques. Demonstrations of this were studied and found that a single diver could cause significant hull damage using basic martial art attacks.
Impressive.
😂
Baki
The FORD group has some added capabilities NOT known by the Press or general public- with damned good reason. I wouldn't advise taking it on at anything less than say 22,000 nautical miles or so , and yes, that's all the way around and a bit more. The Ford defines the term "TEAM SPORT'.
Building a super modern, high tech carrier like this, drives technology on a lot of levels, all over the US.
That be tech to be used directly in the carrier, but also tech in industries supplying in the building and maintenance of the carrier.
To stop any further capability dicussion, and the elephant question in the room, what is not answert in the video. How to stop a mach 10 missle?
Fact is, that no anti-missile system exist, that can defend against a missile that flies (Mach 10) 3.5 kilometers per second. And imagine 10 or 20 of them coming at the same time.
That means Game Over for any ship. The second it is recognized, it is already too late.
6:59- Aircraft carriers have the most sophisticated air defenses on the planet….and they never travel alone…they are with a full fleet that all have their own capabilities. The goal of a carrier is to get planes within range and provide cover support as needed…it’s an air craft carrier for a reason. The people that talk against it, don’t understand how it is used in combat or it’s capabilities.
As a sea man I can only say. America is great all over the world thanks to the vessels like this
Carriers can be obsolete. Depends on their defensive skills.
Would and should the US Navy sacrifice multiple destroyers, frigates, and cruisers to keep one afloat? Absolutely.
My wife and I nearly got run over by a carrier about a decade ago as we transited Newport News in our little sailboat: MY error in not recognizing how massive they are and tough to change speed with. Felt like being approached by the Rock of Gibraltar, tbh. Obsolete!? About as obsolete as humans are😉. And we'll just keep making them until after the powers that be decide they aren't needed any more.
From what I can see, China and the PLAN are not discontinuing their own carrier program. We'll just have to see what kind of carrier task force they think up.
@@JimCarner I still think it would primarily be a test between the air wings and robots of the carrier group and anything the opfor has on the shore and in their own carrier groups.
@@JimCarner Like how well and how fast can the aircraft and cruise missiles etc in the carrier task force establish air superiority.
@@JimCarner I imagine those things will start to show up in carrier groups as well, like how a carrier group can already launch a cruise missile and deploy drones. I haven't seen any sort of dedicated "drone carrier" yet. Part of air dominance is the use of long-range robots.
I'm told the carriers today easily hold around 90 aircraft? China is starting to build more carriers, but not at the pace the USA can keep. They don't seem ready to abandon the carrier either. They might enjoy the advantage of parking a carrier outside one of their client states the same way you do. Like a chinese carrier outside the coast of Somalia etc. On the high seas, the USA can still easily match any other carrier force.
There's really few examples of carrier duels in recent time. WW II carriers don't see eachother, the effective range of their air wings make those battles sprawling and sometimes confusing things.
@@JimCarner I assume other ships in the naval task fore would fill those roles. Other vessels already perform anti-submarine roles or serve as launch platforms for various robots. The heavier aircraft and drones still require that runway strip and the logistical support a carrier hauls with it.
The need for air superiority is still not gone. Giving over air superiority on the high seas and during amphibious operations would be a big deal. The drone complement of an airship would still need to duel with land-based fighter aircraft and whatever anti-air robots they got.
I was on the USS Kitty Hawk back when it was new. And I can tell you it was the safest place on the planet.
They are just a big target. I was on a US attack sub in the 80s. During war games we were able to get underneath carriers and take pics of the bottom. Our captain had big kahoonas. We even shot a signal flare over the flight deck during one war game. I can't even imagine what is capable today.
Nothing is invulnerable. Subs included.
Having said that, I was a surface guy but a few times while stationed in the Gulf, went down into visiting attack subs to give the port brief in the CPO Mess. The Chiefs watched me and my facial expression droop down as I looked over the framed photos on the bulkheads, some of which were carriers through the periscope. Aw shit. ☹ The Sub Chiefs seemed to enjoy that. 😄
Being able to station an airforce anywhere in the ocean will never become obsolete in our lifetimes
True against 3rd world countries, they are already obsolete against a technology peer anywhere close to thier homeland.
What about the change factor? Just because a technology has been watertight for a century doesn't mean it will survive the change factor.
If it's possible take it down with a swarm with missiles, it's only a wish.
so how have so many US bases around the world ?!
@@lubricustheslippery5028 Not with the pace laser technology is advancing... pretty sure the US had considered this decades in advance.
Everyone forgets about the CSG when it comes to Aircraft carriers I feel. Everyone who doesn't have one, wants one. I still believe in the Aircraft carrier and its still my absolute favorite kind of ship. Nothing else comes close.
@SeattlePioneer I'm well aware. That's why tactics must evolve as well. Had the Japanese evolved their strategy to prepare for such an assault, the Yamato may not have been sunk. Logistics and strategy matter just as much as overwhelming force. China is bulking up and but as of now, they could not sustain enough saturation strikes to eliminate the us navy in the pacific theater. The US navy has the most comprehensive navy and the greatest by displacement. When they run out of missles, fishing boats aren't gonna help sink an aircraft carrier. But that's just my opinion.
Excellent analysis. The point of consideration is that Nimitz class hulls could be upgraded to equivalent ships for half the price.
Doubtful. Most of the Nimitz are near the end of thier service life and certainly have thousands of small maintenance problems.
Much more efficient to replace them and upgrade at the same time
@@es83stevenson88 I totally agree, but I am speaking of the hull of Nimitz class. Yes, of course the ship must be rebuilt, but using the Nimitz class hull saves at least 4 billion dollars!
@@orangehairbrain8733 I am no engineer but the existing hulls must have some wear and tear by now. Also I thought the ford class has major internal change to accommodate new technology and future improvements? Is there a video break down of the cost of the 4 billion? I would be interested in seeing it.
Not trying to cause online grief or anything just interested in the subject
@@es83stevenson88 You make a good point! Did the Navy do a cost analysis of my point? No. Why not. The Nimitz hulls are fine and could be refurbished to last another 50 years. Saving billions.
@@orangehairbrain8733 Sounds like armchair supposition from here. New ships are built in sections these days and put together with everything already plumbed in. Trying to strip a hull then retro fit would definitely be more expensive and less cost effective than building new from scratch. Could it be done, yes, would it be worth doing or cheaper, unlikely, unless you wanted to do a quick upgrade of a limited scope to increase the number of ships available quickly(you are at war or have lost ships and need quick replacements). Wars are fought with what you already have initially and you only get new things if you do not lose straight away, and can expand manufacturing to a war footing, America had 2 years at the start of WW2 to increase their war production, and many projects/ships were started well before Pearl Harbour.
I wouldn't say the Zumwalt program was entirely a failure. The technologies developed helped many of these new ships. Unlike China the USA R&D's everything and doesn't just copy. You need to be able to pay for some issues in order to innovate.
I disagree. Nimitz was a major step forward. The 1st three were laid down like the last carriers such as the JFK. Then they went to the heavy lift system of pre-assembled units for the 4th.
Maybe their draw back was electrical power but not initially. Ford class addressed that. Improvements were continuous for later builds. CVN65 wasa major change with nuke power. The only other nuke powered carrier is France's Charles De Gaul. The Nautilus was the 1st nuke powered sub. Nuff for now! Here we are almost 50 years on and they they'll be around for a while yet before they time out age wise.
Neat. This is the first time I've heard of Electric Reactive Armor, or the Nulka anti-missile decoy. I wonder what Electronic Warfare capabilities we'll also see from ground based vehicles in the future considering the rise of drones in combat.
Literally no aspects of vulnerability to submarines or torpedoes are discussed here, and for more on that check out the Chinese Song class submarine that surfaced real real close to the USS Kitty Hawk in 2006. Missile strikes from far away aren't nearly as deadly as anti-ship missiles fired from subs close in, and worse, anti-ship torpedoes can cause catastrophic flooding below the water lines across multiple decks. The real issue with the carriers--and carrier strike group concept in general--is that it ties out best offensive naval assets (DDGs, CGs, SSNs) into defensive roles protecting a carrier that is still vulnerable as shit to sub-launched torpedoes and missiles. Additionally, missiles fired from ships and land sites can now out-range the missiles carried by F-18s--even when factoring in the flight ranges in addition to the missile ranges. Carriers are basically the costliest way to do strike operations because you need to launch a missile that is launched from an aircraft that is launched from a ship with some 5,000 personnel on board that is guarded by another 3-4 ships/subs with another 1,000+ personnel on board of those escort vessels. You're paying for all of that just to put a small-yield air-to-ground missile on a target while tying down your best offensive naval assets in defensive roles. The escort ships (CGs, DDGs, and SSNs) are also now clustered together to make for potentially easier targets for a pack of submarines or even a single submarine operating alone equipped with a bunch of torpedoes.
I don't think the USN sends 5000 dedicated and professional carrier crews and combat pilots to sea so that they can be sunk in 5 minutes. There is no.more powerful ship at sea than a carrier, period. Build all the nuclear subs that you can, you still can't rule the waves over a carrier task force. Also, think how many surface and underwater sensors are looking for you in that nuclear sub? If you're an enemy sub and a trained ASW carrier fleet is bearing down on you, i think your hours left alive are very short numbered. I would tremble as a crew member of that submarine.
Subs are often part of the flotilla! I assure you the Pentagon has thought of every possible scenario!
The short answer to this question is DEFINITELY if they face an enemy like Russia or China.
All the evasive maneuvers and protection of the rest of the carrier group don't mean anything if they are attacked by hypersonic missiles, because they don't even see it coming before it's too late to react.
The response time (according to the Institute for the study of war) when attacked by a hypersonic missile like the Zircon, flying at Mach 9 and has a reach close to a 1000 miles is about 30 seconds and according to the same study they need to fire at least 10 air-defense missiles in the time span of less than a minute to even have a chance to intercept one of these missiles.
You can rest assured that the Russians or the Chinese will not just use a single missile to attack a target of this magnitude.
In other words, the big bad bathtub will for sure be transformed into a massive static submarine without a shadow of a doubt.
Well, these very large carriers have never been used against any "formidable enemy" since ww2. It should be understood that any large vessel on the open ocean, is easily seen from satellite based assets, which can immediatly transmit its position, speed and track (real time) to land based and airborn missile systems, not to mention enemy submarine assets, all of which could launch hypersonic missiles, against which any slow moving ship would have little chance of survival. It can also be expected that such land based missile systems would not launch just one but several missiles and from different locations. So against a real formidable enemy, (Russia/China), any large sea born vessel would likely not survive for very long. Too big, too visable, too slow.
Russia is crap at everything satellite related and China also does not have American capabilities yet.
USA could destroy Russia easily if they wished
The CV's are not the only aviation capable ships in theater anymore. The smaller LHA/LHD are all quicly becoming fast attack carriers with the F-35 coming online. Don't ever doubt the sailors capability to fight their ship.
Don't you mean most ships now can support attack aircraft with the new vtol F35 and Attack helicopters? I don't think there's any ship in the US Navy now that can't use aircraft.
F-35B
Valuable tool, absolutely. 13 of them is not enough, when you look at the world and all the issues that we face today. 20 or 25 would be a better target number for the U.S. to have in its fleet.
IMO.
And whose going to be paying for all that?
why 25? Why not infinity?😂
Most issues the US is facing are created by the US to justify the money transfer to the MIC. Obviously there is not as much profit in securing the southern border, providing affordable housing, healthcare and education as in war war war.
@@karenwang313us😭
Aircraft carriers seem obsolete now against China & Russia given that they can be easily taken out with hypersonic missiles, such as the Russian zircon missiles. The zircon missiles are virtually undetectable with the surrounding plasma that absorbs all radar electromagnetic waves and are far faster than anything we have, and consequently, are unstoppable at this time. The zircons can take every surface ship out of a strike group. So, it doesn't look promising now to keep carriers, unless we can figure out how to make a missile defense system to counter the new hypersonics, which is a technology that we are very far behind now versus China and Russia.
Working in the shipping industry, I have seen commercial satellites today can easily spot any surface ship even small military boats sometimes in real time.
Something as big a carrier is definitely obsolete, I guess the US Navy Flag is what protects their aircraft carriers (with the fear of sanctions and retaliations if hurt)
Knowing where an aircraft carrier is and then having the balls to do anything about it is why a Battlegroup remains effective.
In the event of a war, those satellites can be shot down and will be shot down as needed
If High Energy Weapons are a thing…that’s absolutely game changing for carriers!
Oh they ARE a thing… they have been a thing publicly for about 10 years. Which means they have been an actual thing for probably close to 20 or 30 years easily without anyone knowing about them… the U.S. tends to disclose “new” weapon systems long after they have been tested and used already lol
The new Ford class US carriers have a huge excess of electrical generation capacity, specifically intended to supply power for beam weapons etc.....
the problem with any energy based weapon is you're always pushing up against the inverse square law.... not that they aren't lethal. just you cant simply double the power to doable its effective range for example
that and their a purely line of sight combat system..
The destroyers and frigates surrounding carriers and the Virginia class submarines that are a part of a carrier group add layers of defense to a carrier. It's not like carriers roll alone all over the place. Those destroyers carry missiles that can shoot down ballistic missiles. They've even had success shooting down an ICBM.
What happens when they have just one more missile than us?
@pedro97w that’s where the B21 stealth bomber comes in and takes out a lot of their anti-ship missiles without them ever even seeing it on radar. The B21 has a radar cross section of a mosquito and is basically invisible on radar and it has stealthy missiles it can fire from 1,000 miles away.
@@pedro97wThat's where EW comes in.
not to mention the f22s and f35s on board, thats a lot of power
This debate has been going on my entire adult life. I remember hearing it in the early 1980s. It was Senator Gary Hart's argument that the carriers were obsolete, and should be replaced with a larger number of smaller carriers whose mission would mainly be sea control--mostly anti-submarine, and many of the same arguments were used, but with the Soviet Union instead of China as the antagonist.
I think we were are evaluating a carrier's vulnerability--we need to ask: what about the USAF air bases? When claiming a carrier is vulnerable--why do the critics never mention stationary air bases? Especially those in forward areas in range of the same tactical missiles that could be used against carriers? Those air bases on land cannot move. A carrier is far safer than the land bases, which would come under saturated missile attack. Yet no one suggests that the USAF air bases are now obsolete. You just find ways to defend them.
Critics of carriers typically have no experience in the Navy or at sea. The ocean is HUGE. And a single carrier, when viewed from a satellite, is really not all that much bigger from other ships, including civilian. Yeah, up close in person it's enormously bigger than say, a destroyer, but not from a far away vantage point, like a satellite. And carriers can move much faster, and with greater agility than one might realize. A satellite might spot it in one pass, and easily lose it by the next orbit.
I sometimes wonder how much the "carriers are obsolete" meme, is generated by the USAF, which is intense competition with the Navy for funding (this has also been going on forever). The USAF would love to see a few Ford Carriers get cancelled and the funding diverted to more NGADs and B-21s.