How does a Carrier Strike Group work?

[@theromanorder]

0:50 compassion 2:37 continued and defenses/ the carrier 3:30 crusers (anti air, anti satellite, light anti sub but helicopter helps and recon 4:35 destroyer (missles attack land or navil targets good for offensive or defensive. light anti submarines capabilities) 5:25 submarines (anti torpedo, anti submarine, mine hunting, and attack enemy, and missle lunching Surply ships, 6:30 clasifcation of threats 7:00 formation (kinda)and battle tactics

[@stephenwest6738]

The carrier strike group is essentially the embodiment of not simply a global presence, but also a reminder that the US Navy is the only Navy in the world capable of blue water operations. This ability cannot be understated. For those unfamiliar with what this means and how overwhelmingly intimidating this capability is: It's the ability to operate with 100% effectiveness, away from Port or even the United States, for a near indefinite length of time. The size and scale of the Navy, paired with unmatched logistical support roles makes the fleet a nearly autonomous entity. While essentially every other Navy on the planet is tethered to its country, spending a vast majority of its time in or near it's port. This means when most navies operate they are renting their time at sea, while the US Navy owns it and has already paid it off. It's the ability to tell potential enemies that it has a military base 10 miles from your border. At that point it might as well be in that country

[@hetbet3879]

dont forget the royal navy, or chinas navy. both can do the same.

[@bolobalaman]

They are literally so powerful that where ever it go, the sea area where it sailed automatically become United States territory that if u attack a Carrier Group. U basically fire at Washington DC

[@hetbet3879]

@@bolobalaman that applies to all navies though, no matter what country. and it doesn't become that territory. otherwise that would be a violation of a few treaties. As long as they stick to home countrys waters, or internation water. they're okay. You're an american who is too sure of your country. You probably don't even realize you're $3 trillion in debt, running out of cash and your country will be no longer white by 2050.

[@bolobalaman]

@@hetbet3879 yeah sure buddy , US is going down soon. Hold your breathe on it

[@NarasimhaDiyasena]

@@hetbet3879 chinas navy is not a blue water navy. It’s big yes it they don’t have the capability to act in the same manner as a Blue Water Navy, hence why they resorted to debt trapping poor countries into handing over ports in Hong Kong style 99 year deals where they can park their navy in on the One Built One Road infrastructure. It’s a variation of an ‘island hoping’ strategy by using ports as Islands. The only country that can truly benefit from this kind of tactic is Sri Lanka, which if it takes on Imperial Expansion after finding itself can utilize all those ports doting the Indian Ocean as secondary bases of operation. This is why every Empire since ancient times have wanted control over Lanka, it’s a geographical strategic location for trade and military activities.

[@stephenwest6738]

The carrier strike is necessary to overcome some of the disadvantages that come with America's 2 most reliable allies:The Atlantic and the Pacific.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

If Canada decides to get it's own strike group, 4 diesel carriers with F/A-18 Hornets and F-35 C for defending the coasts it will lessen the burden the load on US.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

​@@niweshlekhak9646Canada has too many ties to China right now under Trudeau.

[@murkywateradminssions5219]

*angery British noises intensifies*

[@brandonadams7837]

@@niweshlekhak9646that’s what Air Force bases are for. Carriers are to go AWAY from your own country not hang out near it for defense.

[@OscarZheng50]

@@brandonadams7837 it depends on what your doing and how much carriers you have. if you only have 1 carrier like India or france, it makes sense to keep it close to friendly shores. that way its harder for enemies to sink it and its your sole carrier, if you lose it then a replacement wont come cheap or fast. if your America that's surrounded on both sides by water and need to project power across a world that's 70% covered in water, you kind of need a blue water navy with lots of carriers to operate far from friendly shores

[@ronnieam33]

I did 2 deployments on the USS Ranger CV61 and only saw our supply ship when we would refuel and never really saw the other ships in a Carrier strike group because they are always a go distance apart from each other.

[@NateWongSongs]

Interesting!

[@ronnieam33]

@@flatsixx Yes I help with its decommissioning before I got out of the Navy while it was still at port in Coronado.

[@davidsoule1252]

I was aboard USS Joseph Strauss DDG-16 for two deployments during the Vietnam War. While escorting carrier(s) at Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin, all destroyers escorts were close to the carrier. We used to watch planes launch from and return to the carrier(s). So they were not a great distance from each other that you could not see them. I do agree that it was only during UNREPS that we say oilers, supply ships and ammo ships as they stayed farther off the coast.

[@l3uIletpoints]

The projection of such power is meant to be so overwhelming as to never needing to be used. Which is such an interesting idea when you think about it. Billions of dollars spent to ultimately be retired without ever being used as its main goal. Is it a waste? Absolutely not, as a war would cost a whole lot more. I just pray that our fleet doesnt suffer the near fatal danger of - complacency, given its many years of success.

[@Gizziiusa]

Well, with 11 groups total....that would be one helluva "Spanish Armada" event. in other words, doubt it.

[@l3uIletpoints]

@@Gizziiusa well, 11 battle groups - likely also means 11 DEI departments, staffed and all - to ensure that the needs of those warriors who find themselves in need of gender affirming care, have access to all the new and innovative care that this great country can provide. In short, what with maternity flight suits seeming to be a top priority for the upper echelons of our military brass... I dont know, do you feel safe? Who wouldn't?

[@RareSense]

Yes all show but no go...... costs a lot and USA is Trillions in debt in other words in trouble....... doesn't install confidence that the USA hasn't won a war since WW2 which America with short memories must recognise that the then Russia won (before you say anything look up facts, it is accepted that over 55 million soldiers and people (communities) died on the Eastern front. The Western front (USA, UK, France, etc) had around 2 million killed to get it into perspective. Also as an Australian just sticking to facts and also remember that the Australians in war games with USA has sunk your carrier a number of times with our old Collins Class Subs (old diesel and electric versions). :)

[@Fiercefighter2]

its definitely a catch 22 situation

[@anitasmith4559]

Amen, indeed. The most powerful deterrent on the globe comes under the umbrella of the U.S. Navy. Threats and trash talk aren't necessary if you're carrying the biggest stick.

[@luisbianco6676]

A giant octopus would put the entire task force in serious trouble.

[@AndyGarcia-ch1ci]

Actually Godzilla too. I know u saw the movie. Or was it kong. Dang I forgot

[@luisbianco6676]

​@@AndyGarcia-ch1ci Godzilla could be it, because Kong was very tired after walking around holding the banana.

[@skipowder64]

I love these comments. Thanks for the laughs

[@luisbianco6676]

@@skipowder64 I was being serious... if they continued with this dialogue I was going to ask if they knew anything about the excited dolphins

[@deoxi3207]

​@AndyGarcia-ch1ci yeah godzilla would most likely tank a carrier strike group. Ive yet to see a bomb actually penetrate his skin. Its just the force of the blasts that hurt him and not the actuall projectile themselves. His skin is way more durable than some mere ships.

[@JustinTurnerman]

If you wipe out 1 strike group just remember there are 10 more strike Groups as well as a bunch of nuclear submarines and airpower to follow.

[@danchen6783]

At any given time only about 1/2 to 1/3 of the carrier fleet is able to sail. It takes a ton of maintenance to go out. Out for a year. In for a year or more. That’s why we need 10-12 carriers. If we didn’t we wouldn’t be able to sail both Atlantic and Pacific at all times.

[@AndyGarcia-ch1ci]

​​@@danchen6783I love this comment section because people like you actually know what you're saying, I came here for this, but you beat me to it. Still, 3-4 carriers in the shipyards still leaves a formidable 2 theater navy battle ready.

[@JustinTurnerman]

@danchen6783 still a heck of alot of air power and submarines lurking.

[@danchen6783]

@@JustinTurnerman Yup. Certainly need it now.

[@Philitron128]

We might not have healthcare, but God damn does the US have an unbelievably powerful military.

[@JenniferA886]

Well said 👍👍👍 can I please ask… how much does it cost to see a regular doctor in the USA? Thanks

[@dennis.teevee]

healthcare is free if you're low income

[@paintpaintpaintco.6039]

@@JenniferA886$200 without insurance, plus whatever kind of scan you need to buy and medicine you need to buy

[@Gunit867899]

​@JenniferA886 depends but this no healthcare is a compelte lie.

[@Philitron128]

@@JenniferA886 Well, it depends entirely on if you have health insurance or not. And then it depends on who your provider is, and what plan you have. And the plans are an absolute mess of indecipherable nonsense, and corporate lingo so I won't go into that. Without insurance, a basic physical will probably run you $200-400 if you find a cheap doc. With a decent insurance, assuming the doc is "in network", and you are on the Gold+ premium plan, you might be looking at something like $0-150. Again, this depends entirely on what your insurance will cover. A hospital visit without insurance for say, a broken arm, can easily run you up into the thousands. Without a plan probably something like $7000-10000, with a plan, assuming both the hospital and doc are in network, you'll likely cap out your yearly deductible which will likely be in the neighborhood of $1500-3000. In short, it's a very expensive mess.

[@jamesjohnson1710]

If it's hype it's the most heavily armed and powerful hype I've ever seen

[@Lordmattg]

To summarize this video: America is #1🇺🇸

[@bradfraser3216]

China is closing in quick

[@stephenwest6738]

The only thing that would make a carrier strike group more effective would be if the Navy had F-22's. Though it was done to save a single program from eating up a significant part of their budget every year, it would still add another layer of intimidation to an already OP presence anywhere in the world

[@سلمانالعتيبي-س2ل]

The f22 Is designed as air superiority fighter which basically means the role of the f22 is to shoot down fighter jet the f35 is multi role which basically means it shoot fighter jet and close call support and shoot ground targets the f22 can do multi role but jot as good as f35

[@titan133760]

​@@سلمانالعتيبي-س2ل Correct. Carriers often undergo a variety of missions, which is why their combat aircraft are designed for multirole operations, such as the F/A-18 and the F-35

[@OscarZheng50]

if the f22 was converted for naval use then it would be converted to multirole, its weapons bay would be larger and probably bigger fuel load. it would also have more wing surface area, helping with naval operations but the navy decided that it was too expensive although the f35 program they invested in was also too expensive. the fa-xx fighter will combine the strengths of both the f22 and the f35 so we have that to look forward to

[@patricksutfin9374]

@@OscarZheng50 The FA-XX is designed to replace the FA-18 super hornet 4th generation strike fighter. It is the Navy version of the NGAD the Air Force is developing. (a different design). The F-35 and FA-XX will both be multirole with the F35 more for strike and the FA XX more geared to air to air and fleet defense. Both will be capable of the others missions at reduce efficiency this allows for the limited numbers on a carrier to compete against all expected threats for the next 20-30 years. A single carrier air wing has more firepower than all but about 10 countries air forces around the world.

[@OscarZheng50]

@@patricksutfin9374 its going to have the sensor fusion of the f35 and the speed of the f22. its gonna be able to be manned or unmanned and have the ability to operate drone wingmen which the f35 will also be able to do in the future. its got an increased missile capacity so it can be a missile truck and suppress enemy fighters while the f35s and droned wingmen do their job

[@eQui253]

U need to make a Which would win series video: Russian T72 or a John Deere 6R

[@DinoNucci]

No.

[@AdamGman3]

my money is on the jd

[@skymaster4121]

John Deere. In fact, farmers has carried away hundreds of russian tanks on tractors

[@eQui253]

@@skymaster4121 U don't say. And now think about why I wrote that comment in the first place.

[@eldiablo6413]

Makea me proud to be an American

[@theromanorder]

Yes this is re-upload of the pined comment edited, Note aircraft carriers allow to send a large air force anywhere to strike any enemy, note in formation they can relise scouts for intell to make the group stronger, they can also be a deturent including peace keeping, they also have almost indestructible armor and unknown onboard defense 0:50 compassion 2:37 continued and defenses/ the carrier 3:30 crusers (anti air, anti satellite, light anti sub but helicopter helps and recon 4:35 destroyer (missles attack land or navil targets good for offensive or defensive. light anti submarines capabilities) 5:25 submarines (anti torpedo, anti submarine, mine hunting, and attack enemy, and missle lunching Surply ships, 6:30 clasifcation of threats 7:00 formation (kinda)and battle tactics

[@josephpiskac2781]

Back in the 1980s it was determined that in a full scale global conflict the entire world's surface combatants would be gone in three days. Carriers back then were defined as liability due to the massive defensive fleet required to protect them. They are a luxury that we use to make everyone uncomfortable.

[@BladeFitAcademy]

Like a nuclear conflict? That's all I could figure. Short of that whoever determined a carrier group is a liability was wrong.

[@nickriley4609]

@@BladeFitAcademy a carrier deep out at see constantly moving may be the safest place to be in a nuclear exchange...if your not a civilian with the money to build a good personal fallout shelter

[@boostjunkie2320]

@@nickriley4609 carriers will most likely be targeted in the event of a nuclear strike

[@ulrek54321]

@@boostjunkie2320 You'd have to find them, nuclear strike targets would be predetermined. A moving target could waste a nuke.

[@boostjunkie2320]

@@ulrek54321 there are times when they know exactly where an aircraft carrier fleet is

[@Michael-ri9ve]

Can we have an episode about what 2 carrier strike groups can do 😁 nice video!

[@rgloria40]

There is a less glamorous force which is the amphibious ready group or amphibious aircraft carrier group. You probably need to do a series on this: How do amphibious ready group work?

[@GoldenAura32]

The ARGs are a sight to behold themselves.

[@bullwinkle60]

I believe the USMC would now be put ashore by helicopter with HIMARS to deny the enemy access to the area via air/ship.

[@animaez_sir32-Nk_]

My God😱😱 Indeed! It's very formidable 😲😲🔥🔥.

[@zacharydavis4398]

Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content 🤙🏾

[@Grid88]

More to come!

[@billc.4584]

Went on two floats while in the Marines. One six months and the other three. My podunk LPD was attached to the USS Kennedy's group. Put eyes on the carrier exactly one time in nine months. :( Peace.

[@Propman203]

God bless our United States

[@xsqatterx]

ayeee Ticonderoga babyyyy, let's goooo! I'm from this small town in Upstate NY lol good too see our name get out there

[@VivekBole]

They are formidable but not unsinkable.

[@jamesjackson9606]

Hope we never find out, because if someone do sink one that would mean full war.

[@VivekBole]

@@jamesjackson9606 - that would be correct!

[@kimpeater1]

At one time, the world's navies believed nothing would be able to defeat a fleet of dreadnought battleships. Then they became obsolete at the next war.

[@wxchaserz1434]

Japan learned it the hard way. Don't touch our boats. But, good luck trying to sink a carrier strike force. You'd have a better shot winning the PowerBall 3 times, than successfully sinking a strike group.

[@ivanme6217]

Oh and by the way, if this description of Americas fighting abilities at sea wasn’t intimidating enough, we have 11 strike groups.

[@CrayonEater255]

This will be useful for my CMO mission

[@buzz5969]

A US CARRIER STRIKE GROUPs work in unison as a big can of worldy kickass.🇺🇸🍻✌🏻

[@AndyGarcia-ch1ci]

The carrier strike group is without a doubt the us's most important asset. Well, actually carrier strike groups are 1A. And ohio class submarines are 1B.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

I think theyre weak compared to what they could be but they are strong compared to the past and no one comes close but we can do better

[@michaelthorsby]

It's the most powerful set of military equipment there is. I do wonder how much of a threat hypersonic missiles are to a Strike Group

[@mikestand6110]

The U.S has been testing ships equipped with massive electrically powered lasers that have taken out large drones and planes in testing. Once they perfect this tech, there won’t be any missiles on the planet that would threaten a strike group.

[@aciditywormhole9898]

He left out that the U.S navy is now equipped with laser weapons which can shoot down a hypersonic missile.

[@RealWorldGames]

The evolved sea sparrow are also designed to counter hypersonic missiles.

[@mitchgingras3899]

Seems everyone is an expert. If a hypersonic glide missile is enveloped in ionized layer of radar absorbing surface. How is our famous Sparrow missiles going to plot an interception which it won't see comming?

[@RealWorldGames]

@@mitchgingras3899 the information I relate is from personal research first . Then I double check my research with a former Rear Admiral of the US Navy. That Rear Admiral is usually careful in their responses (as is appropriate) , but I am assured we have no reason to be concerned regarding these hypersonic missiles.

[@j.f.m5936]

Great to see the great American military machine gearing up for an enemy they created

[@gilbertmoscatelli2881]

I don't believe we created Russia ... Iran ... China ... but I may be wrong. Every country has aspirations of global domination (either military, economic, or political). This isn't the 'creation' of the United States.

[@bbpete8349]

I found this useful as we have just deployed 2 strike groups to Mediterranean Sea Oct.2023. However, I'm curious in that you had in the Composition section "Carrier Air Wing" in addition to an Aircraft Carrier, yet in the more detailed breakdown halfway thru the video you did not include Carrier Air Wing in that section. It went from Aircraft Carrier to Cruiser to Destroyer etc. The Carrier Air Wing looks a lot like an Aircraft Carrier but there must be a difference as it was a separate ship in the Composition section. Thanks.

[@Rhinomssy]

The Carrier Air Wing or CAG is the make up of the type of aircraft and all of the personel that fly and support those aircraft. I know it was confusing when the video showed another aircraft carrier but it is not another ship. The CAG is made up of about 2500 personel while the ships crew compliment is about 3500. In total personnel onboard its about 6000 people, depending on the carrier. I hope that clears it up some for you.

[@bbpete8349]

Yes - clear now. Thank you!@@Rhinomssy

[@patgray5402]

So basically Aircraft carrier - Mage Destroyers - Warrior Submarines - Rogue Support ships - Healers

[@jackofalldenton4347]

The fact that we have 11 of these floating around is insane and this is just a strike group. There are way more layers to our military onion than this.

[@Deeguala]

Well normally there’s only about 1/2 or 1/3 of them floating at the same time while the others are getting maintenance done to them. They rotate year in year out

[@chowtimewithruss1411]

Carrier strike groups can change the way a fight goes!!

[@spencerkim5495]

I have the secret formula for Coca Cola.

[@WoodsyMoose]

I’m surprised there’s not more Cruisers and Destroyers in the task force

[@delobr]

Aircraft Carrier Battle Group is primarily designed as an invasion force but with present trends where missilery are getting smarter, perhaps it will be vulnerable soon to land based missile batteries.

[@i-on-u]

POWER PROJECTION, Strike Group. The invasion force are the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)…you’ll need Marines to invade

[@Coinz8]

Land based missile batteries can be target by a range of strike group weapons, especially the airwing of a carrier.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

Ships have always been vulnerable to land based systems thats been a consistent thing even back when navies went by sail

[@richardmilton221]

The Navy kick ass and take name.

[@Eqium]

i would say if these cats show up lurking around your beach your days about to go extreamly bad

[@TheKopfjager]

Ahhhh time to watch them put in work, bout to “Free” them out this life.

[@mitchgingras3899]

Will a strike group know if a Poseidon drone is sitting quitely on bottom with 'ears-on', just waiting to know when the strike group is above?

[@cryptojuicer]

imagine being like, an ancient Athenian admiral and seeing this

[@Fimbu1vetr]

*sees 1 frigate* what is this metal monstrosity?!

[@Mokimanify]

The US Navy by itself is the most powerful military in the world.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

No it isnt

[@EggShensSixDemonBag]

My guy, your Growler looks an awful lot like a Hornet.

[@irvingforbes265]

SUPA HORNET

[@kdeezo326]

It’s just an electronic attack version of a super hornet. Basically same design with a few modifications.

[@Grid88]

Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: pl.go-ga.me/tlrhvsg0 and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

[@JorvikBerserkir]

lol no

[@Westcareveterans]

They need to think about how enemies can slip a nuclear weapon into the fleet.

[@Georgejoseph74]

few years back during a nato exercises Swedish Gotland class sub penetrated the battle group and sunk the carrier...it was a big blow for USN...

[@CrayonEater255]

what carrier

[@Georgejoseph74]

USS RONALD REGAN

[@CrayonEater255]

Shit carrier anyways

[@bruhmomento4590]

This was over 10 years ago and there have been improvements

[@bruhmomento4590]

@@CrayonEater255 can’t really take war-games too seriously and this was 15 years ago and the USN leased it to study

[@pastormaxmacattackjohnson6189]

The way things are going we will find out soon.

[@ShortyTW867]

I would not want to be in another navy that was tasked to go up against a US carrier task force.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

Our strike groups look weak to me only one gun on the front

[@Charlie_Waffles83]

❤ So proud to be an American!

[@chaosiscandytome]

The strike group never posits that defeat is a possibility, it only whether it will leave anything I in its wake. Never ever choose any other ally.

[@syproful]

This happens when you had some practice with Japan back in the days.

[@skymaster4121]

I’m from Danmark. I think we should buy from the US a few Tyconderoga cruisers to protect our waters from Russia

[@jasonstewart2153]

The Water people.. does it ring a bell ?

[@crispen-cl8gq]

Looks pretty good to me.

[@xchillkillx]

Why don‘t they make the destroyers also nuclear capable so it‘s able to keep up with the carrier and sub‘s in terms of speed? Would also make logistic‘s a whole lot easyer…

[@michaelmaciejewicz7534]

I think a country or group who decided to mess with the USA would be foolish

[@Vladimirputin11111]

We are doint it...

[@AnDrey-wf4gl]

No one can beat the US strike group. This is super powerful

[@Redisia]

I know a simple way to destroy it, but it would most likely cause the end of the world lol. Nuclear warfare will destroy everything... seeing as we (humanity) have like 10k + nuclear warheads. Thats enough to blow up every populated area and navy

[@chrissgaines5156]

Any military can be beat even ours

[@greatBLT]

@@chrissgaines5156 Only I can beat any military

[@CASA-dy4vs]

Nuclear weapons would to talk with you (sure there’s AM and AA but really what about up coming hypersonic nukes or something)

[@Coinz8]

Not really since the U.S Navy has the capabilities to shoot down ballistic missiles. Hypersonic missiles have been proven LESS effective. @@CASA-dy4vs

[@BillyBadger043]

I would note that destroyers no longer carry nuclear tipped tomahawks. Those were all retired years ago. 2013 I think.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

They definetly still have them dude a certain number of subs will always have them so its not like they havent got them bro they got them. They have more conventional ones there is more of because those are the smarter ones to use a lot of the time they cost less you might only need to blow up a cheap crap ship in the iranian navy you feel me. But i mean they have tomohawks dude all they need is the nuclear payload and this country is filled with way too many classified and declassified nuclear bunkers for them not to have them dude they have them. Weve got a very complex advanced nuclear weapons strategy the little nuclear tomahawk really is like the least significant part of it

[@refaiabdeen5943]

Cheers Mate.

[@lalrinfelapachuau149]

How does a CSG work? Like a charm

[@andreww1225]

Why does the new aircraft carrier hold less aircraft than the Nimitz?

[@Kakarot64.]

The Nimitz capacity is common knowledge the Ford is still a relative unknown by comparison so the stated figures are likely intentionally wrong to hide the true capabilities.

[@jongjongcruz190]

how does it protect its satellite?

[@LuKiSCraft]

Submarines are the most OP Navy unit which is why the U.S. has 64 nuclear ones lol

[@lyndonhamby7432]

Dominance 🇺🇸👍💪🏻☝️

[@geolehman]

Sweden has demonstrated a very unique small submarine that participated in joint operations with one of our carrier groups. The submarine was developed to operate undetected. It moved freely within the carrier group within feet of our vessels.

[@Coinz8]

Every submarine is designed to operate undetected and no submarine is risking being "feet" from another vessel as the chance of detection and a collision is higher. The swedes were able to remain undetected because the U.S Navy wasnt conducting anti submarine operations.

[@ChicagoHOG27]

"Developed to operate undetected" is one thing. "Moving freely" is another. This is not to say they weren't detected.

[@HarryCriswell-ky5xt]

DAYM Glad I live in USA!!!!!

[@RoyCalfoforo]

Great :)

[@GabrielChalrosanga-t2d]

The best❤

[@madjic-uc8hf]

I would relativize "anywhere in the world". Yes, they can access any location in the world through their aircraft, but it's easier when such places are close to a see. Central Asia, central South America, or middle of Russia for example, not to say Moscow, is less accessible for a Carrier Group.

[@robert5943]

Incorrect, a carrier group firing at stationary targets on land have a very long reach. Our trident 2 SlBM has a 7000 mile range and thats from a sub

[@madjic-uc8hf]

@@robert5943 sometimes it's hard to not be smashing hard when answering stupid remarks. I will try though. You understand that I was talking about a carrier intervention with its "classical" weapons, which are planes ? Right ? You know a carrier is called like that because it carries planes? If your talking about icbm missiles, then yes you can reach any place in the world, but if it could solve all conflicts then you would not need any carrier at all. But you have carriers, a lot of them, why ? (take 2 of 3 days to think about that) Then, it is harder to get carrier planes far from where the carrier can stand. Doesn't mean "impossible", but so much harder that it has no interest. If the US wanted to bomb Moscow, they would use long range missiles or long range ground based bombers, absolutely no means a carrier can send. And launching missiles would be from ground or from subs, much much less vulnerable against retaliation...

[@robert5943]

@@madjic-uc8hf we have 2, 3, 10, oe more because we need vessles large enough to haul a nation size airforce to meet trouble as far from our borders as possible. One of the major advantages of the continental US is its distance from those who would love to see us fall. Due to our location, until recently, its kept china, and other anti US nations from being able to attack us with any force simply because they just didnt have the air or sea vessles able to carry an attack sized for to us, carry the weapons and ammo for the attack, carry the food and fuel needed to get them thru and to do it without US knowing theyre coming. Hell, russia could maybe pull it off, but china, iran, NK, they still cant get to us undercover, in lg enough groups to make it viable. Why do you think all thier focus has been on building hyper nukes? Its thier best and almost only option

[@robert5943]

@@madjic-uc8hf so do you expect me to appologize because we learned early to be on top and remain there would require having the ability to show force in large scale such as a carrier force which isnt nearly as vulnerable s you believe it to be, and deep down, due o the years and years anti US nations have wanted to take a swing at us and all that stood in thier way was atmosphere, stratosphere and just plain fear of what a carrier group could do while questioning thier own strength to take it on is why it hasnt occured yet. Or would you rather i appologize because we spend more than our enemies combined, on our military power or do you expext an apology for the fact that we dont parade our latest tech down our streets and bolster numbers to place fear in our enemies hearts, butvrather to take a f#@k around and find out approach, split our nuclear abilities into different abilities so no 1, 2, 7 enemy nations could possibly take our nuclear power without realizinf we still have other means to fight very effectivelly against an enemy feelung froggy enough to jump. ...i think my apologyvshould be morr for you not understanding that any nation out there that could have done same, would have or are trying to now and maybe unstead of saber rattling with your key smaahing comment, u should take a few days to think how benneficial doing some research may be when talking about somw of these things. Take care

[@madjic-uc8hf]

@@robert5943That's not the point, point is a carrier cannot easily intervene all around the world. To help you get that : What don't you understand in "A carrier vessel (even from the purest super cute super power that are USA) is not the best way to intervene in the whole world, because 'the whole' world includes land that are very far from sea" ? And in "Nukes launched from ground or from Subs has no connection with the power of a carrier or with his ability to intervene ?" "Not the best way" does not mean it's impossible, but it's just not the "best" way. I'm pretty sure the US would not use a carrier to intervene in North West China or in the Altai region, or in the center of South America. And maybe, maybe, that's why US keep so much military base all around the world. Think about it ;-)

[@claytonbigbsy3880]

Unreal system! No other country has anything close from what I can see? My question though, how long can the US continue to keep up its military budget? It can’t last forever!

[@fullnelson3028]

let's just hope our guys are trained up properly for whatever is to come

[@ioanbota9397]

I like it they are powerful

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

Our navy is weak and sad. Only one puny gun on the deck not one battleship or ship packed with like scifi drone dome bubbles

[@corvanhoute8072]

No chance against Mr Kinzhal.. 😁😅😂😭

[@boneloaf6058]

My dude really tried to sound like Project Farm guy

[@dace938]

It was. Kinda wonder now...... (USN RM3 USS Mt. Whitney 74-77)

[@kevinballard8771]

Awesomeness! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@mjscorn7943]

Outer and inner defenses... 1 cruiser and 2 destroyers...?

[@1979Spica]

Today, yes. This title changes over time.

[@idrismohd1501]

20 years 3 trillion dollars, the greatest Armed Forces in the world left Afghanistan with Taliban reinstalled as Government.

[@joseysuniverso]

Eagles are real bro 😎

[@adibmouhanna6823]

Why you didn't upload last month? Besides why you always upload every month? Anyways good video 👍

[@xartimus18]

Thanks for giving away the U.S. NAVY playbook, China appreciates you.

[@Macdaddy8124U]

11? .....thats not enough!

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

If we go up to 15 we could take the destroyers from 75 to 90 and each carrier could have 6 of them. With the subs still feels like its missing something like a drone boat that has deployable antidrone antimissle drone bubble forcefeilds and underwater versions and shit. To me its sad we have 8 battleship meuseums and all the guns got replaced with missles. I still think we need 1 battleship in a strike group but a real crazy one with tons of antiair and antiunderwater defenses and just guns all over crazy bug guns no missles because there migjt he times where yiur battleship is in a strike group that has a lot of missles but if you roll up 20 miles off yemen and you want to hit it you want to give it all you got you want to bring the big guns even if you didnt have to. Battleshipsnphased out by missles by i mean if your strike groul is all together shouldnt we have like a sci fi battleship in there than can hit a bullseye in land from out in the ocean its sad to me this destroyer has one tiny little autocannon on the front and its cool but its there because they know they need some conventional firepower with big ammunition capacity so if we habe 11 strike groups now and 75 destroyers if we go to 15 and 90 shouldnt we have 15 battleships because fuck it why not thats cool ass shit? What if they drop an emp over yiur strike group and now theyre all dead in the water you still want a conventional ship in there that can shoot in the air or at other ships which in that period may also be dead in the water and could be easy pickins for a ship that isnt ran off computer chips you feel me

[@zakskenandore5074]

The Chinese spy tasked with watching this video is sweating right now

[@miapope544]

Yep.!!

[@AhmedAdly11]

No one knows if they work. Maybe we will get lucky enough to see a carrier get creamed and see if they work or not

[@yodudewatup1]

The modern equivalent of ancient Rome’s legions.

[@RiceBoy1975]

It’s like a tribe how they travel in groups

[@mikeporten8174]

The anti-ship missiles worry me a lot. If a missile that costs a few million dollars is able to take out one of our $15B carriers, we’re screwed. That would be the definition of asymmetrical warfare.

[@DonOmarRamiro]

Yes and no. It sure hurts, but "take out" its a lot... Ukraine is using $800 drones with $200 explosives to "take out" 50 millions tanks, but that hit has to go into the tank wich is really dificult. A missile sure would hurt an aricraft carrier but it would not take it out of the fight.

[@Mokimanify]

It would be very difficult to destroy a carrier with all the defenses and how the carriers are constructed. The missile would have to make it past lots of defenses designed to destroy them.

[@RareSense]

Well Iran has been perfecting asymmetrical warfare for some time and USA knows it..... I remember a documentary where a General in Iran stated that they would apply this approach and send an overwhelming number of missiles all at once to overwhelm actual defensive ring as well defences on Aircraft Carrier in waves so they cannot hit all of them and also the challenge of reloading their weapons so that missiles do get through to take out carrier.

[@ivanloko8292]

By time Iran hits it's target it will be a floating country.@@RareSense

[@RareSense]

@@ivanloko8292 this is emotive and fantasy talk and bares no realism in structure.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

RIP Ticos...

[@ShortyTW867]

the best advice would be not to mess with the US Navy

[@Mike780Jones]

Hypersonic missiles fired within 700 miles would likely defeat all those ships though.

[@Coinz8]

a hypersonic missile would be intercepted by any number of the Navies anti missile systems.

[@3094usmc]

By the time the hypersonic missile gets to its intended targets area of operation it will too late as US carriers move pretty quick for their size, and have a top speed that is currently classified. Further more, the US Militaries implementation of direct energy weapons makes a massive difference as nothing can beat the speed of light.

[@Mike780Jones]

@@Coinz8 has there been tests done to prove its capabilities?

[@410Kalvin]

Lmao is this the WATOP guy??!!

[@ensen89]

Steve??? :D

[@410Kalvin]

@@ensen89 lol YES Steve! 😂 it is him!

[@christophertheexplorer5370]

Just means a lot of cleaning stations and surf and turf Friday’s

[@russelltan5134]

Why did he think he could go back lol

[@williamburroughs9686]

I'm thinking yeah.

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

Interesting

[@leeofallon9258]

Show and tell ... sort of like speak softly but carry a big stick! The carriers coupled with land masses should provide a respectable global defence!

[@TeW33zy]

So sick of ads and sponsorship videos. It’s so irritating.

[@zaidounalimansour6648]

USA army is extremly strong and sophasticated

[@samgod]

This video is about the US Navy. No mention of the Army.