Why Aircraft Carriers are Smaller than Commercial Ships?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024
- Given today's available technology and the US Navy's budget, one might wonder why aircraft carriers are not built bigger/longer so they can accommodate more aircraft, especially that there are bigger /longer commercial vessel traversing the oceans every day. In this video, we will give you our take on this question, and it may not be what you think.
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
What do you think of the 4 reasons listed?
Are there other reasons why carriers are not built in longer length that should have made it to our list?
Do they need to use the suez or panama canals?
Yes, which was mentioned toward the end of the video.
@@niel546 They no longer fit the Panama locks. Suez has no locks.
More concentrated armor layout, as shorter length = less area to armor, and so a shorter ship can have more densely armoring/compartmentalization throughout the ship than a longer ship with the same amount of materials.
An example would be the North Carolina class battleships to the South Dakota class battleships difference, where the South Dadoka class, having a shorter aft section, had a more concentrated armor layout at that section.
yes I know this required the South Dakota to install more powerfull engines to reach similar speeds, but I am focusing on how the ship was able to concentrate more armor in the aft section with a shorter length
@@ryanc5195 They have very limited armor.
The clips of aircraft carriers in tight turns was mind-blowing.
Me in my head during those turns: ".. sings Tokyo drift melody...."
Bow thrusters and multiple engines
DEJA VU!
It's usually something that they only do during shake down cruises/testing... Or if they are desperately trying to avoid something. That's why you don't see aircraft on the flight deck. Even tying them down (which they do normally anyways), having a carrier listing that much can be too much strain on them and having them break free. Don't want a $70,000,000 aircraft rolling off the deck and into the ocean.
Would be helpful against torpedoes or smaller boats. Not so much against a missile.
That's my reason for bigger is better. More defenses. Less chance to overwhelm the guns.
"Just like this video, it's as long as it needs to be". Brilliant! Haha
should have been a video of exactly 10 min though haha
but still brilliant
That’s what she said!
STOP USING RETARD UNITS LIKE FAHRENHEIT AND FEET GET REAL!!! and
Just like my 🐓🤣
@@멸공의_횃불
Okay chinese spy
There is another size constraint: the Panama Canal. Most of the American Navy has to operate in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
The CVN’s are still too big for the Panama Canal, the USS George Washington needed to sail around South America to get to Norfolk from San Diego. The LHD/LHA’s are small enough though.
Oh god Panama please upgrade your canal
@@shukriwafiq5220 They completed a big upgrade a couple of years ago, widened the locks. Probably lengthened them, I'm not 100% sure.
@@donjones4719 The new locks are still too small for American super carriers.
@@dundonrl Yes, definitely. I was just informing Shukri that his plea for an upgrade has already been fulfilled - to an extent. Since they just finished one, there's no way another upgrade will be done for decades.
well, oil tankers make money. carriers cost money
Cost money to defend a country
@Theodore Olson video said the same exact thing too.
literally the video could've just been an image of this comment
@Theodore Olson what is your problem?
@@fuckheinschitt239 You don't seriously think the US is threatened by any country? The US has 11 carriers plus a number of smaller helicopter carriers. No other country has more then 2 carriers, and those are all smaller with less aircraft. The US could scrap half of their carriers and still have comfortable naval superiority to the rest of the worlds navies combined.
2:20 Yeah I can think of a carrier that did that, USS Franklin in 1945 after she was struck by several bombs which blew up inside the hanger and detonated the majority of aircraft munitions. She sailed from just off the coast of Japan, to Pearl Harbor, then to California, and finally to New York for repairs.
Thats just crazy
Ship refused to die.
Just like the uss yorktown american ship says not today
then
@@露火-b6m til she took a torpedo or 2 to the keel, immense flooding caused her to sink
So when are they gonna massive ass turbine engines on these things and have them fly around.
Avengers flashbacks
They have steam turbines.
"Captain, the Chief Engineer says we need to shut down the engines for a few hours for maintenance."
"That's fine. We're surrounded by allies."
"We're also at 18,000 feet."
Flying carrier renders the aircraft they carry sort of pointless.
But what if they could launch boats and submarines?
Why Aircraft Carriers are Smaller than Commercial Ships?
_Ka-Ching_ 💲💲💰
Why don't they have nuke power then? 🤔
@@stephank9066 The carriers are nuclear powered
It's about being a hunter not about money. Freighters being fat hogs makes sense. Nimitz class carriers are predators make no mistake.
@@mikewaterfield3599 hunter 🤣. Carrier is a glorified transport for the planes they carry. They don't even control the aircraft after they launch. They fall under control of the Air Defense Coordinator, which is whichever Aegis ship is stuck following them around. As the only cruiser in the battle group, it was always us, which meant we couldn't pull into port until the carrier did.
BTW, this is meant as a joke (due to the internet lacking a sarcasm font), though it is true. No matter how much the carrier crews would argue otherwise. 😁
@@bradgaines5091 they fall under control of the CAG. I served in three CAGs in my day. We did not answer to the boat chucks. The function is the same as in land based aviation. The individual operator be it a part 124 carrier, 135 charter, or 91 owner operator, they share one thing. We do not answer to airports. Never underestimate the import of a carrier. They are quite literally a mobile airbases and sovereign American territory.
When I was on the Navy and we did underway replenishments we had to have two people operate the ship one drove the ship and another operated the throttles, I was the throttle operator once we were done with the unrep the con man would ask for full speed ahead and a 30 degree rudder the ship would lean side ways it was fun seen everyone leaning on way.
That is intense! I've been wondering lately why they don't make ships that turn faster. I get that they heel over, but even a B-52 is able to turn better it seems, lol. Right now they are fast, but remind me of zepplins when it comes to turning. You might know better than me, thanks
It's called the Helm & the Lee helm..
Let history never forget the name, Enterprise
Yesterday's Enterprise
Long live that blessed ship
They're making a new ship with the name
@@connormullins3711 yes I know of course I know
yea
A fact relevant to the last point is the case of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, the Argentinan aircraft carrier deployed during the Falklands War. It operated Hawks, which while able to operate in normal weather, were unable to take off due to the lack of wind at the start of the conflict. Ironically, the British tried to sell Harriers to the Argentinians, but they didn’t buy them because they were deemed to expensive
The day before the Belgrano was sunk the Argentinian Carrier was due to launch its embarked aircraft in order to attack the British taskforce but couldn’t get enough wind over the deck due to the unusually good weather.
Side note: Longer ships tend to be faster than shorter ships. An example of this is the Type 42 class destroyer, the later batches of ships were longer and faster.
@@jamesalders896 longer proportionally.... basic drag, the longer ship exaggerates the streamlined shape, making it cut through the water better, rather than push through like your stirring something
@@jamesalders896 should that be ‘due to unusually low wind speed’? Seems strange that the embarked aircraft were unable to fly off. Did someone pick the wrong kit?
@@BernardLS If you watch Mark Feltons videos he goes into detail about it
@@jamesalders896 thank you for the tip. Lurking in the back of my mind is a half remembered fact the the Admiralty had a requirement that any aircraft type they commissioned had to be able to fly off in still air and without catapult assistance, seems a tough one to meet especially as they would have a number of unspecified parameters like fuel and weapon load, flight deck length and vessel speed. Is that sound a wrong tree being barked up.
Its simple. Carriers hit the gym while commercial ships are couch potatoes dining on fast food.
Military ma boy
You gotta be fit if you wanna look intimidating and ready to fight at all time
STOP USING RETARD UNITS LIKE FAHRENHEIT AND FEET GET REAL!!!
Kinda
Carrier's are like students with a lot of free time. The might be smart and hit the gym, but they also don't do much and are a money sink, as long as their skills don't come to use.
Commercial ships are more the working man. Not as sleek or "smart" but the are working and providing every day of the week, no time for elaborate gym plans.
@@KorporalNoobs carriers are actually huge job producers. From the sailors and pilots onboard to the workers employed by the shipbuilding industry to produce, maintain and repair these vessels
Super underrated channel
Ive seen more underrated channels like so fkng under rated
Search tinyverse and wtach his videos
True af
Couldn't agree with you more.👍
You should check out the channel Planet Biz!
It has only 450 subs, but the videos are like of a 100k channel
"Why are aircraft carriers smaller than some commercial ships? The Panama Canal.
Not sure they can fit. They couldn't before. But with they have done with the canal now, I don't know. CV-64, CVN-73 plank owner.
Length Width Depth
Panama Canal locks 289.56m 32.31m 12.04m
USS Gerald R. Ford (GRF) 333m 41m n.s.
HMS Queen Elizabeth (QE) 280m n.s. 11m
MN Charles de Gaulle (CdG) 261.5m 31.5m 9.43m
n.s. not stated
The length given for the ships is length over all (LOA) and the length between perpendiculars (LBP), which is usually shorter even adding back the bulbous bow if that protrusion is fitted, might be the more relevant metric but LBP is not stated in the publicly available sources researched. WRT depth the figures given for QE & CdG are the published draught for each vessel. Other factors such as air draught and structure overhang may also need consideration.
@@BernardLS Keep in mind that the Panama canal has added larger locks and deepened/widened the navigational channels to allow transit of the larger "Post-Panamax" cargo ships. The new lock chambers are 180 ft (54.86 m) wide, 1,400 ft (426.72 m) long, and 60 ft (18.29 m) deep.
-
Also, the numbers I found for the pre-expansion locks list them as 110 ft (33.53 m) wide and 1,050 ft (320.04 m) long, and 41.2 ft (12.56 m) deep. Which are not too far off the numbers you listed, in all fairness.
@@MonkeyJedi99 thanks, where did you find your numbers my research was limited to Wikipedia.
They can’t fit in the Panama Canal
For #2, interesting fact. In WWII, the German battleship Bismarck was only able to get repairs at two dry docks. This ultimately became one of the many reasons it never returned from its first assignment.
....and why a British commando raid on the _Normandie_ dock at St. Nazaire in March 1942 had to succeed to deny access to the only drydock on the Atlantic coast large enough to accommodate _Bismark's_ sister ship _Tirpitz_ in the event of it getting into the North Atlantic & needing repairs. Without the _Normandie_ drydock facility, _Tirpitz_ would've had to return to Germany for any repairs.
@@stephenphillip5656 exactly. The documentary (I believe it was called ‘the greatest raid’) with Jeremy Clarkson on it was fantastic
Watching that girl turn that sharp is the most American thing on the high seas.
Makes you think of the sharp turn at the end of "Battleship" when the anchor was dropped to drift a BB....
Edit: only this part is real...
@Jamie C so they had help against Nicaragua? Tell me, who helped them?
@Jamie C Who helped us in the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War?
@Jamie C 1 week old account, uneducated, hates the U.S military. I'm going with CCP 50c army. Looking after your 45 dead from last clash with India?
Jamie C r u dumb?
"carriers are made just as long as they need to be and no longer" Sailor tapes a ruler to the end of the deck just to spite you.
Perfect ending : if you had added "share like subscribe" etc... we would have called BS ;-) I knew there was a reason I subscribed.
@Iᴄʜɪɢᴏ Kᴜʀᴀsᴀᴋɪ shshsh don't tell him
@Iᴄʜɪɢᴏ Kᴜʀᴀsᴀᴋɪ It's not what you think! We started less than 4 months ago.
@@NotWhatYouThink :0
@@NotWhatYouThink That was smooth
NWYT is still a young channel, but it’s growing alright
This video is just as long as it needs to be and I appreciate that.
I remember touring the USS Intrepid. I wasn't impressed by how large it was, I was impressed by how small it was. It's about 3/4 the length of the Enterprise. I was stunned that they could lunch planes off something so small. John McCain in a documentary said when he served on the Forrestal, they did exercises and the Intrepid would lunch twice as many planes as them despite the Forrestal having four catapults compared to the Intrepid's two.
never trust anything that mccain says. He caused the deaths of over a hundred of the crew of the USS Forrestal.
Sounds like something your mom said to your dad
@@murica1898 I served aboard USS John F. Kennedy CV-67. All of us know the REAL reason why the Forrestal caught fire.
@@tabithamartin4092 If you know about aviation then you do if you listen to rumors no you don't
@@braddblk wasent a rumor, it was FACT, and it was covered up because his dad had enough influence in high places.
The speed also has to do with the entire fleet speed. This affects how fast it can deploy, or if it can evade or catch an enemy fleet etc.
I hate to tell you this, but hull speed increases as boat length increases on displacement type hulls. If aircraft carriers were longer, they could potentially be even faster. As it currently stands, U.S. Navy carriers are the fastest ships in the Navy, by a wide margin.
"Just like this video. It's only as long as it needs to be." If that wasn't the best outro I dont know what is! 10/10!
😊👍🏼
“Big enough to do the job and not one inch bigger” Powerful quote to live by
Speed is also critical for strategic mobility. Being able to get to a conflict zone 25% to 50% faster can be critical.
A carrier is only as fast as it's escorts though, and those escorts are not nuclear and require regular refueling.
@@krashd
Very true, but the core of the carrier group can break off, refuel and rejoin the group. Other possibilities another vessel tag teams the vessel low on fuel or the entire group pulls back to refuel. It should also be noted that the vessels can be refueled under way somewhere between 10 kts to 15 kts.
At cruise speed, a carrier group can travel at 20 kts plus for over 4,000 nm with burst speeds up to 30 kts. I can't be sure, but I think it ight be able to do 2,000 nm at that speed. That isn't shabby.
That turning radius is insanely impressive
It is also worth noting that the speed of the carrier for apparent windspeed needs to accommodate its least powerful planes, so while while a fighter that is lighter with relatively low weight, high thrust, and large wings can get away with a lower apparent wind speed, strike, surveillance, and transport aircraft are less capable (especially with heavy loads of weapons or other material) and need all the help they can get.
"...like this video, it's just as long as it needs to be".
I'm smiling right now.
Beautifully put. Just beautiful.
The navy should add the vampire teeth (gerny catcher) thing on the end of the nose. Not because it would be useful, but because they look cool
Sucks that it won't happen, because it costs money :(
Bow prongs?
The ship on the thumbnail is a battleship goddamn it
Nice information that you got mate. I like it. Keep it up what you're doing mate.😊👍
Last of the V8 interceptors, woulda been a shame to blow it up.
What's in the canister
You want to know why, just look south. They need to travel through the Panama Canal. It's why Yamato was as big as the IJN wanted, they were free from the restraint of the canal, where as our Navy might need to send one of our carriers in the Pacific to the Atlantic
For the Falklands war, the UK turned two container commercial ships into escort aircraft carriers for its Harriers jump jets. In theory, F-35B can follow Harrier jump jet's example.
I never thought about the carrier speed helping aircraft to take off. Wow!
Yeah carriers always turn into the wind at Midway the constant air attacks precluded them from launching a strike .
It also helps the planes to land if they are turned into the wind
I really like this channel since its videos are short and the ships it talks about are interesting.
NOTE: When you see the two aircraft carriers side by side, that is the first official video of the new USS FORD CVN 78 and the NIMITZ CLASS USS TRUMAN CVN 75. I have sons on both ships. My Son on the FORD serves as a Conning Officer calling out commands for the ship's speed and course. Proud Dad and 20 year Veteran AWESOME VIDEO
The reason that the wind across the deck is important is that the more wind the less shock to the aircraft from the catapult. Aircraft can be launched from a carrier with no wind, this is harder on the aircraft and the catapults but possible. During my deployment on the USS Ranger, we had a major fire in the #4 main machinery room and were unable to make more than 12 knots for some time. But due to the events that were going on in the near Indian Ocean at the time and elsewhere we had to stay on station and we had no relief available.
What was your rate?
@@heezawk3611 AT Aviation Electronics Tech
Yknow I clicked on this video thinking I wasn't really going to learn much and that you were just going to say "bigger = slower and costlier" but I was surprised, never even considered the problems with docking a big ship like that in wartime conditions.
Just as all NotWhatYouThink videos... their length is just enough to deliver their contents but not a second longer.
Isn't it always fascinating how things so heavy can float and fly
Not really shields helicaria does it all the time
Everyone that ask this question is either
1) Not a Sailor
2) Not an Engineer or Naval Architect
The amount of people that fit this description who may have asked are OVER 9000
The engineers will ask, because they need to figure out how large they need to build the next ship
Yes.... a majority of the population are not sailers, navel engineers and navel architects
or lacks any kind of common sense lol
No US super carrier has ever traversed the Panama Canal, only the smaller America class and similar ships can traverse the canal. even with the expansion, the canal locks are not wide enough to accommodate the angled decks of modern super carriers. furthermore the bridges over the canal are not tall enough to accommodate the island structure with its radar on modern super carriers. Carriers are as big as they need to be to accomplish their mission.
For family day back in the 80's I got to go out to sea on the USS Ranger CV-61,got motion sickness real bad but what an amazing day it was❤❤❤❤
You should take those pills before the nausea kicks in. My mom took them when she felt sick and then it was already too late. At least she didn’t vomit but she could have had an easier time on that ship.
Love how he’s aware of the length of the video!
You know I was absolutely amazed when I was visiting my buddy in San Diego and he gave me a tour of the wet dock where there was Navy ships for miles. All I could think of is how shockingly small these ships were, I guess I got used to seeing Cruise ships and Cargo ships all the time that when I saw a military ship it was so little comparatively. Like seriously, think of how small a destroyer is, now cut down that to half and that’s probably closer to reality. No wonder the conditions inside those ships are terrible, there is literally no space for the 500+ sailors in even the smallest of ships.
Clicked to ask why a video about CVs has an Iowa as the thumbnail.
Also glad that the video was more interesting than "they're thin so they can fit through the canal"
Idk either. Mistake? Stupidity? Laziness?
Speaking about drifting, back in ww2, carriers can turn like, really hecking fast
For example, the Japanese carrier in the battle of midway, those guys turned so fast that the bombs from dive bombers
Lol you didn’t finish , but to dodge bombs they have a dedicated observer on the top deck that signals the exact time the bomb is released and then steer max port or starboard . Kind of hard with a dive bomber that’s pretty close to dodge . Dodging B17s worked better as you have quite a bit of time to dodge after the bombs are released
my dad was deployed on the USS Enterprise and I have a really strong love for it
“It is just as long as it needs to be” That is exactly what she said
I live in Newport News and see ships being built everyday it’s so cool
1:41 as a space flight simulator player, i can relate to this
I havent played that game this year
What is that background you have there? It's beautiful.
STOBAR(ramp style) carriers MUST be traveling between 35-55 KMH for an aircraft to launch. However CATOBAR(steam catapult style) do not have to be moving in most cases to launch. However they do generally launch while moving because it's still easier and it's a best practice being the who sitting target thing. The most modern type that use linear motors(electromagnetic launch system) to launch the crafts are even less reliant on the ship moving. But of course the same applies, a moving ship is easier to launch from. Also, a moving ship is easier to land on because the relative speed difference between a moving ship and a plane is less and that equates to a wider landing window or target.
USN aircraft carriers actually don't need to sail into the wind anymore due to the power of their catapults. If they need to they can launch aircraft while sailing out of the wind
No, that is incorrect. My Son is a Conning Officer on The USS Ford. He calls out commands for speed and rudder. He has to read wind speed over the deck based on type of aircraft being lainched or retrieved. He turns the ship to get in the correct attitude.
@@CIRCUS1944 You misunderstand what I am saying. Modern aircraft carriers do not need to turn into the wind to launch and recover aircraft but they do because it makes it easier to launch and recover aircraft.
@@hresvelgr7193 I just had this conversation with my Son last week. He is on the bridge of the USS Ford as a Conning Officer. We talked extensively about his job and he explained how the USS Ford operates. He said it is critical that he judge the attitude of the ship to launch and retieve F-18, E2s and Helicopters all requiring different attitude of the ship. Your reply is confusing, they do, but do not???? No further response.
@@CIRCUS1944 They do it because it makes launch and recovery operations easier but they don’t need to. If they have no other choice they can launch and recover aircraft without turning the ship into the wind
3:52
Normally, the carrier's speed during Flight Ops is providing quite a bit more of the "along the deck" wind speed than the wind of the ocean.
30 knots of actual wind speed makes for a VERY rough ocean.
4:31 failed landing attempt
Lmao
Or touch and goes? Do they do that on carriers?
@@asdaf967 "lmao" like it's an easy job.
@@outboundprojectworkshop1270 I don't think so. Looks like they missed the arresting cables and forced to abort the landing.
@@outboundprojectworkshop1270 yes they do
I served 1989-1991 aboard the USS Nimitz-CVN-68 which was the largest carrier at over 1200 ft
Aircraft carriers are also probably the fatest things in the ocean in terms of all military level ships. It would shock you if youve ever been on one at a full pull.
(Classified speeds of course much higher than posted).
On my 1st deployment aboard the Enterprise, we had a nick in the #4 screw when we went anywhere near full power the entire ship vibrated. We couldn't bake bread because it wouldn't rise.
@@braddblk and that was still probably at quarter to half power.
Imagine what happens when all the reactors are on and powering propulsion and mandatory minimum systems, only.
If you do the HP conversion to even the publicized numbers of 1 of those reactors... ... ...
Lets just say it'll give you a good idea pretty quickly of how fast these things actually are, especially when given a straight line and enough acceleration time.
The title: Why Aircraft carrier are smaller than commercial ships?
The Thumbnail:
*PROCEEDS TO SHOW A BATTLESHIP*
You know what's more amazing?
During the battle of midway against Japan in 1942, American naval ships HAD to turn that sharp despite their size in order to avoid those Kamikaze Bomber jets. All the while going guns hot trying to shoot them down.
As a man of the US Army, i give the biggest kudos and props to those wartime naval personnel for maneuvering the CRAP out of those ships at sea.
Kamikaze bomber jets? Bruh
@@9ryo974
Oh. I did say "jets" huh. Correction: kamikaze fighter planes. 😎
Kamikaze's were not employed at the Battle of Midway in 1942. They were introduced much later in the war
@@tamaking86 *Manned suicide rockets
I really loved the new long video, much more informative and entertaining
Okay, the last four seconds got you the thumbs up, lol...
For me it were the first 4 seconds
"Kind of like this video. It's just as long as it needs to be" ... Insta liked at that moment.
So I watched the expanse by Amazon ( it's a series about the solar system in 200 years or something) and it's awesome. But the United nations space navy has similar classifications as current earth navy ships. But it's pretty cool though.
I'm honestly not that surprised, classifications have remained the same for almost 200 years (with exceptions)
For example the Frigate class has been around for longer than any other ship class. It's not too improbable that 200 years in the future, the United States will still have the same classifications as present day.
Also 100% agree, Expanse is amazing.
Ayye beltalowda
Oye beltalowda
4 years on a carrier, only time we tied up at a pier, was at homeport. On cruises you drop anchor sometimes miles out. And you boat in on liberty boats. And on launching jets, we once did flight ops at anchor
A displacement boat or ship's speed is limited by its hull length. When the bow ave meets the stern wave it cannot go any faster. Even maintaining close to that maximum 'hull speed' requires a huge consumption of fuel. The larger a ship is the larger target it presents. Even with deployment of its aircraft no aircraft carrier is able to adequately defend itself and requires a flotilla of other, smaller naval vessels to protect it. Thus the British strategy to deploy smaller aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft and 'ski jump' decks to increase the weapon capacity and/or range of VTOL aircraft.
A greater hull length equals greater top speed. Also these are all nuclear powered so fuel consumption is negligible.
I love to say that, this is a best video show on reasons that it isn't only to increase our knowledge, but it lets us to know more about the gigantic super carriers(or other gaint ships)that we don't know! Thanks about the infor!
Handling is so it can manover into the wind quicker.
Being a student of naval history/technology I already knew these things, but this is much better presented than I usually expect from a YT channel being thrust into my recommendations.
I'm in love with your voices 😁
Very well done sir to the point I loved how you ended it memorable but short as it could be
☺️👍🏼
Your thumbnail is a battleship not a carrier. I'm one of the last living battleship sailors, I should know.
Which ship did you serve aboard? One of the eight remaining American battleships or one that got scrapped/sunk?
Thumbs up for having a REAL voice!
?
fr though the video is as long as it just needs to be
MASHAALLAH khub valo video...
That's the canal from my country in the thumbnail! But that battlesship is too small lol
One, Iowa and her sisters ain't that small. Two, I think this is an older picture?
That small battleship is 900 feet long the longest class of battleship ever commissioned
packed with information as always
Mobility is an Important matter
Big Tanker will paint huge dot for enemy Destroyer
great video and great ending
short and simple
Very good info
All your points make sense as to why
I think it’s because they need to be not too big a target, reduce costs and there’s no need for them to get too big as that’s their effective size
2:49 is it just me or does the yellow guy in the background just look he havin a good time lol
Do they need to pass through panama or suez?
That’s one 👍🏼
I don't think that would limit their length, just the width.
@@kimjonglongdong3158 you would need to be able to fit in the locks. They can’t fit over a certain length.
Panama canal locks? No. Suez canal has no locks.
@@Darthybuddy Yes they obviously need to be under a certain length, but I'm pretty sure the current length of US carriers is a decent bit shorter than the limit.
Not to be picky or anything, but hull speed is a factor of the length at the waterline, so longer is faster, provided there is sufficient power available. For example, a ship with a 1,100 foot waterline has a hull speed slightly more than 2 knots faster than a ship 100 feet shorter, and about 13 knots faster than a 550 foot ship. The formula is knots = 1.35 x square root of the waterline length in feet. They can be pushed faster than hull speed with enough power, but efficiency drops significantly. This applies to displacement hulls like large ships, but not to planing hulls like a PT boat, which could hit 45 knots despite only being about 65' - 75' at the waterline.
It's funny, because that was exactly the reasons i thought of - cost and speed
I've never gotten to see the Enterprise, but I was able to go to the christening of the Gerald R. Ford as my dad worked at the shipyard where she was constructed. It was an amazing experience.
And then we have the "schools" from the anime Girls und Panzer that make modern aircraft carriers look like lifeboats.
you mean actual floating cities.
Problem?????
TBF, GuP is an anime where schoolgirls are put in tank battles with live ammo and... unreasonable speeds in order to prepare them for marriage, and no one has ever been even hospitalised. The schoolships are weird but they're not the weirdest thing.
@@YukariAkiyama anime diehard stfu
@@protalukoriginal4560 F1 car diehard stfu
Loved the ending.
1:30 POV: its the first time u have seen a aircraft Carry turn
*aircraft Carrry*
@@chris52209 didn’t know TH-cam comments was a spelling bee💀
@@Warccc relax I misspelled carry also lol
Very good and right to the point!
0:58 lit rap bro 🔥🔥🔥
Maximum hull speed is determined by the ratio of length at the waterline (LWL) and beam (width). Longer will be faster. Container ships are 330m/1000' long so they can efficiently travel at faster speeds. Of course a vessel can travel faster than it's LWL but it takes significantly more energy to do so. (Speed boats plane on the surface. If you've ever operated a speed boat, as you accelerate they seem to get resistant until they're 'on the plane' when they seem almost effortless. This doesn't happen with large ships.)
But speed is less of an issue on a longer carrier as there would be a longer runway giving more time to accelerate.
Maneuvering is still a huge issue though.
Only on ski ramp ships. They run the deck.
The higher ship speed translates to safer launch of heavier payloads on the aircraft
Speed of the ship is irrelevant. It’s the wind speed and direction that allows for safe launch’s and traps.
@@mcnugget3851 Speed is needed to make wind over the deck.
Great video, very informative.
It’s not how big it is. It’s how you use it
My Son gets to do this. He serves as a Conning Officer on the CVN 78 USS GERALD R. FORD shown making turns in this video. Proud Dad
You for got "the bigger target the easier to hit".
No he dodn't. Reason #2
You forgot that the ocean is millions of square miles.
I understand the first three reasons, but not the 4th -- speed. This is because I believe that the speed of a vessel with a displacement hull is a function of the hull length. So that if you want an aircraft carrier that is fast, even faster than the current one, you would need to make them longer. I believe also that nuclear reactors are quite scaleable, allowing for enough power to push a longer, heavier ship at hull speed. (If I am wrong I would be happy for a naval architect to explain why, maybe having to do with sea keeping or structural issues.) If I am right, than speed is not an argument for designing aircraft carriers to be shorter than other larger vessels.
wouldnt a longer ship slow down a lot more while turning?
@@totoro5421 A longer ship would be heavier so I'm sure that it would turn slower. But, ships this size don't spend a lot of time turning. They live their lives in blue water. They point in the direction they need to go and largely maintain their course. You are correct that there are battle conditions that require radical tuns. It is also true, I think, that the faster water flows along the rudder the more turning energy is applied. I don't really know what the net effect would be and what value it would have for a naval vessel.
"see mom, bigger isn't always better"
While stationed aboard the USS MIDWAY, we were told she was the first ship that was unable to transit the Panama Canal, and I think it was her flight deck width that was the issue.