What the Future of U.S. Navy Air Power Looks Like

Join us as we take a dive into the future U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing planned for adoption in the late 2020s. We go over new aircraft coming on line, as well as the old structure they will be replacing.
Support us on Patreon and get access to a variety of exclusive perks like wallpapers, video credits, and priority in future Q&As: / battleorder
Check out our merch shop for new prints, apparel and other stuff!: battleorder.myshopify.com/
Social Media:
• Instagram: / battle.order
• Twitter: / battle_order
• Facebook: / battle.order
Sources:
• seapowermagazine.org/navys-fu...
• news.usni.org/2016/04/28/the-...
• seapowermagazine.org/first-ma...
• news.usni.org/2020/12/02/firs...
• www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/A...
• www.aerospaceweb.org/question/...
• cimsec.org/the-evolution-of-th...
• www.defensenews.com/digital-s...
• news.usni.org/2014/04/01/ucla...
• news.usni.org/2016/02/01/penta...
• sldinfo.com/2020/05/shaping-a...
• www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
www.files.ethz.ch/isn/177815/...
Waypoints:
Intro: (0:00)
Context: (0:49)
Current Air Wing: (1:49)
Future Air Wing: (6:39)

[@johnbu9098]

Jesus the navy really love their hornets Air to ground: hornet Air to air: hornet Air to sea: hornet Electronic: hornet Refueling: hornet

[@Thememelord134]

Bro just summed up the us navy

[@chuckbuck5002]

When space is limited, having muitiple roles served by a single aircraft simplifies logistics, maintenance and training.

[@rdeEKINS]

Would love to see a breakdown like this for the RAF

[@12321evan]

Was thinking exactly this as I was watching the video

[@LRRPFco52]

That would be a really easy video to make since RAF is smaller than USMC air. It would cover the short-term plan for the retired Tornados with how the RAF Typhoon and F-35B squadrons are shaping up. UK has already been operating F-35Bs out of Cyprus. Would be interesting to see how they’re coming along with Typhoon-F-35B-Meteor integration, but if I was the UK, I would keep that all under tight wraps and not discuss it. Just let the threats be surprised when they eat Meteors and AIM-120Cs and not know why.

[@shep9231]

Yes... I would like to see this... very much sir!... Considering I used to be British earlier in life.

[@XxBloggs]

The British version: we’ll use the US marines air wings and sell ours off.

[@piepile6328]

And France

[@BradentonSlick]

Good to see the USN thought of replacing the C2 with the Osprey. To me that seems like a "Duh!"-type obvious answer. Love your videos.

[@Smokeyr67]

Years (decades) ago the USN where looking to replace COD, Hawkeyes and Hoover’s with a common support airframe, but in the end Hoover’s where retired, C2’s soldiered on until they where too dangerous and well, the E2 has been upgraded, rebuilt and remanufactured so they look like outlasting the B-52 😁

[@martinclennon4640]

@@soulsphere9242 I heard that as well a couple of years back; but in the last year I heard that they were able to transport the f135 engine. usn is looking at putting in a fuel bladder into the mv-22b to allow it to perform refueling operations. have you heard anything about v22 being used for e-2 hawkeye duties on STOVL carriers?

[@mikedelta1441]

@@soulsphere9242 also its much more expensive and IMO the expense, complication, maintenance and space for VTOL really doesn't make sense on a CATOBAR. Why pay for that capability when you can use conventional A/C instead?

[@Gepedrglass]

My WSO cant be this cute!

[@erhyfox5750]

I see the reference

[@death_parade]

Sounds like the name of a visual novel.

[@evanchan4012]

@@erhyfox5750 what’s the reference?

[@eroticchickenman2155]

@@evanchan4012 Prez from Project Wingman

[@theyankeepanda4285]

Maybe WWII Carrier Wing organizations?

[@BattleOrder]

It's possible!

[@forcea1454]

@@BattleOrder The entire history of US Carrier Air Wing organisations would be interesting, especially throughout the Cold War with separate Day and Night Fighter and Bomber squadrons of the Korean War period, to the Heavy Attack Squadrons of the 50s and 60s, the dedicated reconnaissance squadrons of RA-5C Vigilantes, the dedicated anti-submarine airwings for the converted Essexes operating as a CVS, to the decision to add anti-submarine aircraft to the airwings of CVANs, thus creating CVNs, whilst winding down the CVS force in the 1970s.

[@1983jarc]

@@forcea1454 those sound like really intrerenting 4-7 videos(pre-ww2), (early/mid/late/night op ww2/escort/light), (48-50's/antisub essex conv), (Vietnam), (f14s to the 90's)...

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@BattleOrder can you do a video on the uk.

[@alexfigueroa5170]

This REALLY aids a lot with Command Modern Operations Scenario Building or editing. Keep up the good work!!

[@potatoe5434]

Really well done! You should make one for the Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth Air Wing

[@aps125]

QE carrier air wing is much simpler. Besides the F-35B jump jets you can only embark helicopters on the deck. Merlin for ASW and AEW missions. Wildcats for support missions. The biggest weak link is the lack of a dedicated fixed wing AEW asset. Royal Navy came up with the ideal of mounting relatively old Crowsnet radar on the side or underbelly of Merlin helicopter. It is not in the same class of E-2 Hawkeye.

[@sevex9]

Maybe the reduction in helicopters are to make room for the refueling drones, the extra hawk eye, and osprey? Certainly does seem like extending the range of the air wing is a top priority. Including the block 2 --> 3 hornet upgrades. Makes sense in general but especially for peer conflict. I like the idea that the refueling aircraft is going to be pilotless and stealthy. I imagine normal refueling aircraft would be really vulnerable in a peer conflict and make for easy targets.

[@imjashingyou3461]

The Navy didnt end up getting the CFT but they are still capable of being added on. The block 3s did get a new engine that make marginally more power (700 Lbs wet each) but supposedly is 15% more fuel efficient.

[@bermanmo6237]

Marines use the Osprey like a bigger transport helicopter.

[@christianpethukov8155]

Learned a lot in this video. Great work! 🇺🇸 ⚓

[@Bullhead_JW]

Worth pointing out that the Navy's tankers are mostly just used for recovery, allowing low fuel state jets to grab some gas if they are having trouble getting aboard. I don't think the Navy has had a "true" tanker as a range extender since they retired the Skywarrior. The Air Force largely provides this role now with KC-135s equipped with MPRS pods and KC-10s.

[@bermanmo6237]

Just like the US Navy used to provide the electronics jamming role with the EA-6 Prowler. Those squadrons had both US Navy and Air Force personnels in each squadron,

[@skyrim654]

Once again, Thank you for covering topics like these. They are minor, nitty-gritty packets of information that are no less important to the greater picture. Always good to watch your stuff with coffee and a bagel in the morning.

[@signaturelookofsuperiority1547]

Great video! Would love to see a break down of China’s current carrier group/fleet organization and their future plans/naval programs regarding power projection throughout the Indo-Pacific and operations in the South China Sea. Or perhaps china’s current air to air and ground to air defense strategy along the coast line. Either way, loving the modern military content!

[@yazi7790]

F/A 18 block 3 has more range cause of the conformal Fuel tanks and Navy is going to change all of it's block 2 super hornets to Block 3 as per the service life extension program along with buying some more Block 3s.

[@aps125]

@@soulsphere9242 Without CFT super rhinos are severely limited in range and a big question for the utility of future carrier strike wing

[@LRRPFco52]

CFTs don’t work on the hangar deck space for some reason. They also restrict access to most of the top-located maintenance panels. F-35C is the kind of combat radius off the carrier, bringing a capability back to the CVNs that hasn’t been there for decades now. A whole generation of carrier aviators has gone by without the culture or reach from the A-6Es and A-7Es, but instead grew up with limited range Baby Hornets and moderate range Super Hornets. F-35C gives the Strike Group commander a bigger, longer stick to reach out with, while keeping the battle group farther away from threat anti-ship missile and anti-ship aircraft reach, while making life harder for them with a VLO platform that is net-centric and Omnirole.

[@yazi7790]

@@LRRPFco52 ofcourse, there are no replacements for F35C. My point here was for the naval F35s, for marines or other light carrier focused force F35C is an unparalleled asset there just isn't anything in the market to compete with F35C currently that can fill that light carrier role for US and it's satalite Allies.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@soulsphere9242 Relatively short-ranged compared to what? The F-35A has longer legs that any supersonic fighter in the USAF inventory including the F-15E (according to former F-15E pilots), and the F-35C has a longer radius than the F-35A since the C has bigger wings and over 19,000lb of internal fuel. It has at least 100nm over the Tomcat’s combat radius and can stay on station much longer than a Tomcat could in a Fleet Air Defense profile. Other than massive misinformation or lack of familiarity with the legacy jets, I can’t explain why people think the F-35C or any other F-35 has short legs. These jets are very long-legged with unprecedented fuel fraction.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@soulsphere9242 Tracking all that. Been dealing with combat radii calculations and theater-specific map overlays of various combat aircraft since 1982. If I load 19,300lb of fuel, 2x 2000lb JDAM, 2x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9X, FLIR, ECM, and towed decoys on any other naval fighter, then launch for a sortie, it isn't going anywhere near an F-35C's radius regardless of the altitude band profiles. That F-35C flight can do EW, D-SEAD, AEW&C, A2A on the way to a precision strike or interdiction mission, while doing ISR continuously. A-6E couldn't protect itself, could only do a few mission profiles with medium attack and strike being its specialties before 1970s SAMs proliferated. It didn't matter that it could fly a few miles farther if it was having to maneuver and evade all MEZ nodes going in. Evasive maneuvers to avoid the MEZ means range gets cut dramatically due to excess fuel consumption, so its combat radius actually retracted. This is a big problem for all prior generation fighters. F-35s are able to ride closer to and thread the needle in the WEZ without diverting much from their routes. A-6s would be dead or defensive prior to even making it that far, especially against S-200/300/350 IADS. F-35C brings longer legs to the S-200/S-350 net than anything else out there. It's a capability being felt once again, but much better with Omnirole/swing-role options.

[@themodernwarfarehistorian825]

Would be interesting to see, because you did the motorshutze late 1980's, their western "nemesis", the panzergranadiers of the western germany Keep up the great work!!! Also Will you ever do a USMC/USARMY Company organization? You have looked at them mostly on a Squad base, would be interesting to see how they are organized in a company (mechanized? motorized? your choice) Another suggestion: US Marines Recon Battalion during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Generation Kill boys Here are other companies that I think a lot of folks would be interested into knowing more about: - UK's Royal Marines - France's Foreign Legion - Italian Alpine Troops (if you need help on this, just ask) - Turkish Forces - Hellenic Army - LITERALLY ANY NATION IN THE COLD WAR (Especially late one) OR MODERN TIMES

[@OperationEndGame]

Now do the JMSDF light carrier battle group and their air wing component...

[@suntrance1]

Very cool. Nice to see some attention going to the air domain.

[@13thravenpurple94]

GReat video Thank you

[@nikolatasev4948]

Awesome video!

[@admaneb]

good work! That was really informative! Can you maybe do one for the RAF and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm?

[@nicholaosperackis7390]

Great video!

[@QueenDaenerysTargaryen]

Excellent informing video.

[@BattleOrder]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@thereble101]

Really surprised you didn't mention the Block 3 Super Hornet and its conformal fuel tanks.

[@aps125]

@@soulsphere9242 W/O CFT block 3 relegates into a minor technology refresh. Navy cited the technical issue as the main reason for dropping CFT which makes me think what the heck is going on with Boeing. They been turning out lemons at alarming rate: KC-46 tanker woes, the 737 Max fiasco, 777X delays they now dealing with, Starliner failure, and now the CFT issue. It seems to me once great company lost its mojo and can’t get anything right now days.

[@drewfierman3834]

@@soulsphere9242 they are CONSIDERING cutting the CFT’s from the Block 3 Rhino. They haven’t done it yet and I think they will push through with the CFT’s because even with the MQ-25, they still need that extra range.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@aps125 Don’t forget the X-32 he he he he he he. Boeing just never had the culture to be a prime contractor for Tac Air platforms. McDonnell Douglas was a world leader in that space, with the F-4 Phantom II, F-15 series, and F/A-18. Those were highly successful programs that Boeing inherited with the merger/acquisition, but what has Boeing done since to earn its place in producing Tactical Air platforms?

[@aps125]

@@LRRPFco52 Boeing is in a much deeper sh*thole than tac jet market I am afraid. They are screwing up their bread and butter business. T

[@LRRPFco52]

@@aps125 I didn’t want to even mention their commercial side of the house, because that’s not my area of familiarity.

[@thetruthhurts9750]

Excellent breakdown.

[@Franfran2424]

great breakdown

[@BengalLancer]

Boooy how on Earth did I miss it???!!! Always wanted to see your air formations video.

[@ryanjapan3113]

9:34 there’s a weird screen error here.

[@MONTANI12]

top secret camouflaged system lol

[@theanonymouscommenter5608]

The sky is glitching

[@richardyasushiii3848]

These videos are really amazing. I think Battle Order is one of the best channels dealing with military compositions and deployments. I'd really enjoy seeing you do the British Navy and the JSDF Navy as well.

[@abraham2172]

Could you make a video about the german, french or polish airforces? This one was great.

[@user-cd4bx6uq1y]

Very cool

[@marcelosilveira2276]

hey man, it's being a while since you published a video, what about a video on a 21st century airborne force? Personally, I would like one on the Brazilian Paratrooper Brigade, but I think it is similar to the american paratroopers, and, therefore, any of NATO's paratroopers, so any of them will do

[@lelonfurr1200]

excellent report no hype no brag just facts

[@WildingWater]

I love these videos they're really informative and fun to watch!

[@BattleOrder]

Thanks mate I appreciate it

[@Phoenixmaster131]

So true, love the style and attention to detail. Really fun to watch! Was looking for such a channel for years!

[@aps125]

Speaking of Navy’s interest in FVL, my personal preference is the Defiant X, it looks straight out of a science fiction flick. So futuristic cool looking. Besides I think tilt rotor V-280 is not as maneuverable and takes too much space. An enlarged V-280 to follow up V-22 is cool though.

[@solarissv777]

Bell has suggested navalized version of V-280 to marine corps, with folded wings it takes as much space as UH-1 Huey, and Defiant is extremely tall, and I doubt there can be a fix for this issue.

[@neniAAinen]

Great irony is that V-280 currently is way more maneuverable.

[@epikmanthe3rd]

The V280 is more maneuverable, faster, and has a much greater range. The Defiant's greatest asset is it's built like an A-10, demonstrating an ability to fly without it's tail.

[@zanaduz2018]

@Battle Order Perhaps a minor tidbit about the reduction in the helicopter force: naval aviation (as a whole) in the US Navy is dominated by the fixed-wing pilots, even though numerically the rotary-wing pilots still make up a substantial portion of the force. Politics (as usual) may be also at play here for this reduction of helicopters embarked.

[@guardianofauset5722]

I wish to request the breakdown of the expeditionary strike group. Thanks

[@koalaseatleaves1277]

Do a video on USAF tactical fighter wings.

[@petereffin4373]

I see that squadron numbers are way down from cold war. They would average 60 or so figher /attack aircraft. They are now down to 44. Too bad.

[@RatherCrunchyMuffin]

I imagine that has a lot to do with the multirole nature of the Super Hornet. As mentioned in the video, the F/A-18 fills the roles (though you might say not as expertly) of four different airframes from previous generations.

[@petereffin4373]

Navy probably can't afford to deploy more A/C would be my guess. They could easily deploy around 58 or 60 Hornets.

[@quakethedoombringer]

Wonder if the Ghost Bat is going to be incorporated into the squadrons as supporting wingmans in the future

[@andrewpizzino2514]

Carl Vinson squadron make up reminds me of recent article advocating specialty squadrons of F-18s. Focusing on air to air or air to ground. I would think the F-35 would be the first day of war attack aircraft and act as the quarterback. With the other two squadrons focused on air to air and air to ground.

[@waterboi8197]

Saw the royal maces that squadron is on my boat

[@MaziarYousefi]

Please do this for PLA Navy

[@jonahd9895]

Would love to see a video on naval Mobile construction battalion (seabee) organization

[@aps125]

Seabee, yes! And their Air Force brothers in arms the Red Horse squadrons. I am always fascinated with military combat constructions

[@jonahd9895]

@@aps125 we all get trained in the same spot. They got it easy lol but alot of respect for them

[@teddy.d174]

Using SuperHornets for tanking is one of the single dumbest ideas in naval aviation. What a waste of resources, aviators, wear n tear on airframes, etc.

[@dingobasket2803]

nice

[@hjp14]

What does the GS over the helicopter NATO counter for the Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron at 2:03? General Support? I googled around for a few minutes but I couldn't figure it out.

[@BattleOrder]

General Support. It's what from an Army symbol for their General Support Aviation Battalions

[@sebastianwardana1527]

i just zone out when watching these... its really good to calm down to... idk...

[@Abdullah-mn6sw]

3:46 why is the pilot opening landing gear above the clouds?

[@glebovskimalcovich207]

I wonder what was a primary anti-ship weapon of naval aviation before harpoon was invented?

[@cm275]

Bombs and unguided rockets I suspect.

[@lizardb8694]

Also AGM-12 Bullpup and later AGM-62 Walleye vere decent antiship weapons.

[@glebovskimalcovich207]

@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva I really doubt that torpedo could be launched from a jet fighter.

[@williammagoffin9324]

@@glebovskimalcovich207 The IL-28 could deliver torpedoes. I'd imagine with HAAWC you could launch a torpedo from most any fixed wing warplane in the Navy if for whatever reason you needed to.

[@williammagoffin9324]

ASMs wasn't a focus of US Naval aviation before the Harpoon was introduced although there were systems as far back as WWII (like the ASM-N-2 Bat that saw some combat service). As LizardB86 said there was the Bullpub and Walleye, there was also the Maverick and freefall bombs (both conventional and nuclear) which would have filled a role. It's important to remember what role Harpoon originally filled, it was an anti-submarine weapon as strange as that sounds. Back in the day Soviet cruse missile submarines had to surface to fire and guide their missiles to the target, Harpoon was designed to give P-3 Orions and such a quick reaction weapon to take them out. The anti-ship mission be the responsibility of the submarine fleet, if shit got real then there were things like the nuclear capable Talos SAM fired in the surface attack role that the cruisers escorting the carriers could use. But it was assumed that any major Soviet surface combatants wouldn't survive very long and the smaller coastal units could just be bombed by NATO air forces. On the international market among the non-Soviet states there were weapons like the French SS.11M and AS.12 and the Swedish RB 04 where the French missiles at least found a lot of buyers. The Italian Sea Killer missile was in development at the same time as Harpoon but didn't find as many users despite the fact it became a combat proven design that is still kicking around. The Soviet perspective on air launched anti-ship missiles is a completely different subject, they went all in on it.

[@yvanjerwinmartin1191]

how bout a break down of a marine expeditionary force

[@MDSR17455]

hey can you a video on the Russian tank battalion aslo on the US tank battalion

[@aps125]

US Marine divested all tanks last year so no more tank battalions while US Army abandoned tank battalions years ago in favor of combined arms battalions, a mixture of tank and mech infantry companies.

[@trentsavage4533]

C2 greyhound will be replaced with the MV-22 ospreys

[@SealFredy5]

It's not entirely buegetary restrictions. First off, carriers are carrying 6 large aircraft instead of 3, and more helos are carreid. Also the "Full" complement from the cold war requires signficant usage of aircraft on the deck space. If you're not at an imminient threat, there is no need to pack the carriers, which can cause other problems.

[@benmerkle7817]

How many personnel does it take to crew and maintain an aircraft on a carrier.

[@lukedesilets5046]

Very cool video

[@serpsupreme2976]

Make that 9 F35s on the Carl Vinson now lol

[@aps125]

In military jargon is the term anti surface warfare interchangeable with anti ship?

[@BattleOrder]

Surface ships yes

[@wildbill9490]

Get these ships flying!

[@flameout12345]

Navy has the best looking planes

[@b1laxson]

Reminds me of when they realized the F4 Phantom needed a gun pod. We add layers of technology and ability but that basic function is still needed. Knife/bayonet for infantry, gun for jets and for the carrier refueling planes for the air wing.

[@omegaasura21]

So odd to go through all the trouble of building and integrating a UCAV and use it for...refueling. Hopefully they use it to iron out all the bugs.

[@halseyactual1732]

The USN and USAF could've had a much more capable drone fleet ages ago through J-UCAS, but politics killed it. And look where they're all headed now, it's truly come full circle.

[@thomasbessis2809]

The'yre just marketed as refuelers, as soon as they figure out a political solution the navy will start sticking sensors on them. It's still a good thing though, refueler drones free up pilots for more intense tasks.

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

What else would they use it for?

[@thomasbessis2809]

@@mr_beezlebub3985 Recon and penetration strikes, like the original program intended

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

@@thomasbessis2809 Sounds like a good use of such planes. Though I imagine that many in the Navy and Air Force would still prefer that pilots still be the ones to carry out such missions.

[@blech71]

Is this a side channel of Jive Turkey? Sounds kind alike Jive?? If so THATS SO RAD!! Holy shit SO SUBBBBED... no pun intended

[@randycheow4268]

So the movie Stealth is about to become a reality

[@majesticface3631]

I heard that the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers can be and were planned to have catobar

[@Autofleet4429]

Officially the class was designed with CATOBAR retrofit in mind, there is a gallery deck below the flight deck intended for such refits which is currently being used for extra storage, officer space and other such miscellaneous functions, there is enough reserve power too for the catapults and the flight deck is strengthened to the standards needed, but there is questions is the gallery deck actually big enough for the CATOBAR equipment as it was laid out in the original design before all the revisions to the design and apparently little work was taken to update/take into account the needed space in the gallery deck, so officially yes the QE-class was designed with a CATOBAR retrofit in mind.

[@KiltedKrusader]

I find it completely understandable, though, counter to that, somewhat dangerous/challenging, to combine multiple roles to one air frame. Modern combat is more digital than explosive. When a carrier holds a diverse compliment of air frames each with their own specialized roles and systems, it has the opportunity to be most effective in more situations and the less likely chance of being compromised (as a whole). Having a full compliment of the 'best" multi-role aircraft is just negligent to me, but that's simply my personal opinion and I welcome all thoughts on the matter. That being said, as stated in the video, space is limited and carriers are few and beyond expensive. I understand the need to diversify a single air frame to handle multiple roles. Should a fighter be tasked with refueling, absolutely not! Also, the ability to effectively on and offload persons and supplies is paramount to a carrier and heli's do that to perfection. Do I think they belong on a carrier? I don't think so. I believe the carrier, though it should have 2 or so on hand, should focus on it's role. To carry and deliver bulk, whether it's supplies, personnel, or pain, they should focus on attack, defense and bulk carriers. Heli's are perfect for small batch deliveries to a small LZ and I believe that they definitely should remain a resource to the air wing, but the escorts should handle that and the carrier should focus on more long range objectives. It wouldn't kill the navy to have a command destroyer or some such designation handle the local matters while the carrier deals with what's really going one. Again, I'm just a guy who has some thoughts. Anyone who knows better, and especially acting service members, share your thoughts, educate me, disagree, just be pleasant.

[@fulcrum2951]

Im guessing the F-16 performance arent good since its a multirole

[@user-sg6zh6vr7h]

I dont think that not having specialized air wings are a big disadvantage, most modern aircrafts can handle a variety of tasks using different modules or variants quite effectively, without needing to account for different maintenance requirements and parts. The lack of dedicated tankers are a big oversight though, they should get one considering the new f35s lose their stealth with external fuel tanks.

[@chuckbuck5002]

What do you mean by comprimised? The F/A-18 Already demonstrates that you don't alwaays need a specia Also if the Carrier is the center of a strike gorup, then I think it should be the center for command and control of the group. I still think that letting the air group of a carrier be flexible is not harmful. These are not seperate formations, every ship in the strike group works in a system of systems. So trying to isolate the carrier from the formation doesn't really help. Remeber that these ships also coordinate heavily for different operations. Like missile defense and cruise missile launches. The escort contingent of a battle group already is given the agency to lead ASW operations. Most carriers dont even have sonar. Lastly, other designs that serverd in the Naval aerial refuel role have any real increase in effectiveness. The Viking, intruder, and Skyraider were all implemented for other roles but were modified to or felxible enough for the refueling role. Im betting the same reason they don't use C-130's for transport is they don't have larger refuelers size. If refueling can be done by smaller or more versatile airframes, then you can save space for other roles.

[@ZZursch]

9:26 so you’re telling me my ARS school was pointless 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@baronvonbeagle9787]

2023, the ospreys are here

[@greymms3603]

Now is the era of everyone buying new things as the enemies are going from people in some caves with AKs to actual militaries.

[@jacobaurelius5361]

9:18 is that based on a real plane?

[@Octi-ku4yf]

The 2nd most powerful air force

[@seargesoren9391]

The video link goes to the Israel Tank Units

[@col896]

Lmao I found u for templin institute

[@benmerkle7817]

Same

[@american_document2626]

I would love to see a video on helicopters of the United States

[@SUNNY-vf2ct]

Aer plain

[@hidnrebel209]

Air👏wing👏daddy👏yes 😩

[@leofiesoli2666]

Why no subtitles?

[@JacatackLP]

YO THE TEMPLIN INSTITUTE A DONOR THO

[@comradeboris2335]

CHAMP RAMP

[@sam8742]

Imma miss the hornet when it leaves

[@LRRPFco52]

Super Bugs will be around for a long time, but they need a replacement and fast.

[@sam8742]

@@LRRPFco52 I thought you were talking about War Thunder, nevertheless a lot of near pears still use 4th gen fighters

[@seagie382]

"like the russian kuznetzov class, which often have a ski jump" "which often" they only have one

[@BattleOrder]

When I said "often" I was referring to STOBAR carriers in general and not just the Kuznetsov class

[@seagie382]

@@BattleOrder ahhhh

[@di0112]

Top

[@bradjohnson4787]

Carriers are brutes!

[@XxBloggs]

Wizzos can and do fire weapons.

[@pyeitme508]

Noice

[@thesuperdupercoolsebassapl4426]

Well we have the uss gerald ford

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

Heavy Destroyers armed with Rail Guns, plasma warheads & laser particle weapons, its a light cruiser with energy weapons,

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@calebjohnson6423 So I can deliver a pain load with less fuel, also a guided missile can be countered but no big bullets,

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@calebjohnson6423 Hey its all a matter of time, effort, slaves or taxpayers, till you get them working right, Its not like I want a Ion canon in orbit,

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

@@calebjohnson6423 like all the world mega projects

[@HiImSeanIPlayBass]

Welp, the sections about the V-22 are now null and void.

[@1701Larry]

OK--------- While the Navy has a large F-18 Cobal running things at the moment (that do not understand or trust Stealth or the F-35), I hope this means that only having 16 F-35's (or even the 10 as on the first deployment) on deck is a short term solution until F-35's are on all the operational Deployed Carriers. The Fact that the F-35 is actually a better and more powerful Electronic Attack Aircraft (using the full power of its main Radar with stealth) than the EA=18 without taking away an operational Attack fighter means that the 5 to7 EA Growlers will be replaced by F=35's as soon as the Lightning is on all the decks. Then as the F-35 proves itself to the F-18 Cabal, will allow two full squadrons (24) of F-35's to deploy without cutting the 6 F-35's dedicated Jammers and Anti-Aircraft platform killers that can still target fighters (EA-18 cannot do) making a force multiplier (with 30 deployed F-35's) to take on mass bomber attacks on the Carriers. Though this could mean having a dozen MQ-25 tankers (or more) for the F-35's (with max fuel drop tanks) needed extended range. While the 24 F-18Es (the two-seat F is not needed and the longer range of the E is) serve as Missile trucks carrying a Dozen (plus) each, of new long-range AIM-260 missiles out to the F-18E's max unrefueled range. While this means for a very crowded deck (unless you are on one of the new Ford-class) the Mass attacks the Chinese are now (or will be) capable of, demand the Carriers be equipped with every Fighter they can carry.

[@chiken6559]

EA-18 can target fighters, it carries AMRAAMs as a self-defense. And decks would still be crowded even on the Ford-class carrier, it still has similar size to Nimitz, same amount of catapults as Nimitz with the only notable difference being higher sortie rate thanks to EM catapults. And carriers don't need to be equipped with every fighter they can carry, come on. What you're describing here requires large level of coordination and high sortie rate, and to have it you actually need to have the smaller air wing, not the bigger one. The bigger your air wing is, the more difficult it becomes to maintain all the aircraft and move them around on the carrier. If you stuff the carrier up with 90 aircraft, effectively obstructing its catapults number 1 and 2 and even some lifts, the air wing is going to be less effective than a smaller air wing of 70 aircraft - because what is the point of having more aircraft, when you can pretty much bring less air power to a single battle thanks to low organization and sortie rate?

[@notdolandark]

So essentially all the fun replacement stuff happens in the 2030s and the 2020s were just using the same stuff

[@cczz0103]

Please leave the music used 😊

[@Jalu3]

Too bad the Navy abandoned its plans on the SV-22 and the Common Support Aircraft. The Navy lost its long range ASW asset.

[@phantomvmfa122]

At some point the mh-60s will need replacing. So I'd go with the V-280. China isn't the only problem we have Russia and Iran should also be considered a threat.

[@tommyzty1089]

Black Ops 2 flashbacks

[@jeffshriber6120]

I believe after 25 years inthe navy, the future of carrier avaition for manned aircraft has met its peak in development and the future wil be in weapon design not aircraft.,too many limiting factors needed in carrier aircraft such as wing for lift, folding wings heavy landing gear tail hook all added weight. the want for stealth the need for range, speed, manuverabiluty a gun , external store capacity, too many variables that are limited. Youll see long range precision is ion strike air to air and air to ground weapons its the only way.

[@importantname]

so much military power and yet so many still refuse to do what US wants them to do.

[@lightspeedvictory]

Correction: the Stingray is not the first drone to operate from American carriers. That belongs to the Interstate TDR and Naval Aircraft Factory TDN which were UCAV’s that flew off of American carriers during WW II en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Aircraft_Factory_TDN en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_TDR

[@gregpaul882]

Why can’t they just build a tanker aircraft…?

[@timucintarakc2281]

i guess it require so much money xd

[@darthinsanitus8510]

Future of naval power……Drones

[@ALTINSEA1]

one US carrier wing have more air power than most country in the world.

[@polakrodak8538]

well the range of the super hornets can be increased if on long range missions they just glide when they need to save fuel and just turn on their engines when htey have to