The Future of the Aircraft Carrier - New Threats, Power Projection & Growing Fleets

[@PerunAU]

Apologies if I sound a bit off this week - have been quite unwell, but I'm hoping my passion for naval force design and history shows through regardless. I made a conscious decision not to clickbait this video as "the end of the carrier" although it probably belongs in that series. It just didn't seem right given the conclusion is probably that the world will have more fleet carrier displacement in service in a decade than it does now. That said, I think the threats discussed (even if uncertain) are very real, as are the challenges CVs and CVNs face if they want to win budget dollars over other, potentially much cheaper and/or more specialised systems.

[@Alexthe360Great]

I hope you feel better, Perun. Have you ever thought about doing a crossover with Kings and Generals? Or maybe somebody else?

[@JinKee]

Are F35B/loyal wingman equipped LHDs a worthy successor for the CVE escort carriers of ww2?

[@michalandrejmolnar3715]

Aircraft carriers are not dead, but they're pretty much as vulnerable as in the Second World War.

[@robertlee6338]

When China decides to go to War with Taiwan, they mean business and the world divides into two spheres. China won't invade Taiwan unless there are willing to risk MAD exchange In all war game senarios, 1. Chinese side of Taiwan Strait is littered with millions of active sonor bouys (this makes all Submarines Chinese, Taiwanese and American postion known to everyone from Philipines, Guam, all mainland bases, Korea and Japanese waters. 2.. China fires a single Nuclear ICBM for air burst detontaion over international waters, to demostrate intention. 3. If US Carriers approach they are targeted with multiple Nuclear airburst in International waters, each closer to the carrier force until Carrier force is wiped out. 4. At this stage USA can decide to Launch an ICMB MAD mainland strike knowing China will retalitate or sit out. 5. What ever happens the world is now trading with US or China

[@MarkGoding]

Get well soon.

[@Mightydoggo]

This guy keeps pumping out high quality content like it´s nothing. You got quite some work ethics there m8.

[@dylanwight5764]

This is why Perun is paid the big dollarydoos

[@igorpankovic5214]

Power Point presentations are the highest of qualities

[@Mightydoggo]

@@igorpankovic5214 They´re harder than people think. Remember school?

[@paddington1670]

I dont think powerpoint existed when i was in school. We had apple II's and then iMACs, which my friend stole the RAM out of. We also used plastic rulers to open the computer lab door so we could use it any time we wanted. Netdragons game and Newgrounds were the number one place for games in school. @Mightydoggo ​@@Mightydoggo

[@daniellivingston7699]

@@igorpankovic5214they’re high quality PowerPoints, presentation, and information. Make one and show us how easy it is.

[@daiakunin]

The Kuznetsov doesn't get enough credit for trying to set the record for 'number of times caught fire by a single vessel'. It has truly earned its place in the history books. Also, get well soon Perun!

[@kevadu]

It also holds the dubious honor of being the only carrier to emit so much smoke it was visible from space!

[@Ensign_Nemo]

The most remarkable aspect of the Kuznetsov's record is that it was always set on fire by itself, rather than enemy action. It's the world's most self-igniting carrier. There was an infamous report by a CNN reporter during a riot in the USA that the protests were 'mostly peaceful but occasionally fiery', as he stood in front of a major conflagration that brightly illuminated the nighttime scene. The same phrase aptly describes the Kuznetsov, as its combat operations record so far is launching just 420 missions over Syria.

[@Djamonja]

@@Ensign_Nemo Sounds like they may have some smokers on board.

[@cremsen1]

XD

[@Tuck-Shop]

It's also the only ship that has come close to having a bad record as the Kamchatka. Which was also Russian.

[@EricEngle-f1q]

Nimitz: I am 100,000 ton beast Also Nimitz: does this phased array radar distruptor make my stern look narrow? Frigate, i'm gonna go for it!

[@Grak70]

This joke deserves more likes than it’s getting.

[@lamwen03]

Sorry, but you've sitll got a pair of hips just like two battleships.

[@Budget_Prepper]

A frigate going against an Arliegh Burke destroyer protecting the carrier is a joke in itself. The 40 anti ship missiles a frigate can launch will be smacked out of the sky by half of 1 Burke's payload. Then the attacking frigate will be trying to get away at 40 knots/hr, while F35s and F18s chase it down at 800 knots/hr.

[@lamwen03]

@@Budget_PrepperBut they've got lots and lots and lots of those little things. Hardly even frigate size. And they all have at least 4 launchers, from what I've seen.

[@jakiseitz]

@@Budget_Prepper it’s usually the crew and the captain of the ship that usually decide the outcome of the naval engagement along with a little bit of luck on one side or the other

[@Humorless_Wokescold]

"The human infantryman is comically vulnerable to everything from bullets and blunt force to beer and boredom." Oof. That last half is almost painfully true.

[@youmukonpaku3168]

the joke told about soldiers in every anglophone nation is that if left alone in a sealed chamber for ten minutes with three ball bearings, when you return the soldier will have lost one, broke one, and eaten one. Never let a soldier go bored.

[@Deridus]

This hits ssooooo close to home, both of you. 😅

[@davidcpugh8743]

Having been a point on the lead of said infantry, my personal experience confirms Perun. More interesting is the ability of our military bureaucracy to transition. In my experience, this may be a vain hope as clearly in my failed war, we were poorly equipped with obsolete gear. Perhaps the classic was our use of converting leaky ponchos into tarps in a tropical rain forest. At the time, high quality tents were already available to private backpacking. A wet infantryman is not too effective. Nor keeping key things like ammunition and weapons clean and working.

[@kemarisite]

Jerry Pournelle, in the Falkenberg's Legion series, taught us that one of the bigger threats to infantry strength in garrison is "le cafard", the bug, and the recommended preventative is a rifle and opportunity to use it.

[@nobdyspecial]

"Rapid aircraft to submarine conversion" - I LOVE the humour you inject into these very well researched and presented videos.

[@Appletank8]

Clearly all the issues of small carriers having less launch capacity can be solved if we convert all fighters into sea planes.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

Won't be surprised to see (50 years in the future or so) a fleet of US submarine carriers/arsenal ships, carrying aerial and naval drones and missiles, and a crew of 5 :) That's if I live long enough.

[@douglassun8456]

For a guy who is feeling sick, he had some real zingers in this episode.

[@Haan22]

Just the tone when mentioning that Russia couldn’t survive being without carriers is *chef’s kiss*.

[@benjaminw6985]

It’s always delivered so dead panned that it catches me off guard which just adds to my enjoyment

[@Vinzmannn]

You really see how much Perun knows just by looking at his output. Uploading a one hour, no fluff video EVERY WEEK for more than a year is so insanely much information.

[@BassPhat]

It's admirable. The lack of fluff in a long video is so rare on KZbin these days.

[@Enyavar1]

At least half of the carrier video here was stuff you can learn from other channels and their dedicated carrier videos, too. So this one here was unusual fluffier than what Perun has constantly delivered... but yeah, not everyone watches carrier videos, so it's necessary to cover the basics, and it was done in Perun's excellent presentation. To think this guy wasted his potential on a _gaming channel_ before the Russian invasion.

[@pauldickinson772]

@@Enyavar1 He works full time for the Australian DoD. He was never wasting his potential, he just felt it necessary to share his expertise to the internet when the war started.

[@Kaebuki]

I don’t think he was “wasting” his potential at all. Gaming is his hobby and he wanted to share it with the world; he wasn’t planning to make a living on KZbin because he already had a job, and I think he also said he didn’t believe people would like hour long presentations. Then, one day, he made a video on the Ukraine-Russia war and it blew up, so he decided “Hey, people like this, so let’s keep going!” and here we are today. He could honestly quit and would be fine since KZbin’s not his full time job, but instead he puts in the effort and time to make these detailed presentations and present them to us with engaging commentary. He’s even got people to make subtitles and edit his audio, all to help our understanding!

[@DaveWhoa]

he's even been acknowledged by the Australian military

[@errorcrj110]

The Royal Thai Navy would like to quietly mutter about also being a carrier power with their ex-Harrier-operating, officially helicopter-operating, presently barely sailing mini-carrier. It is very cute to see a picture of her sailing alongside a US supercarrier.

[@aaronleverton4221]

His Majesty's Bathtub Toy.

[@sir_vix]

@@aaronleverton4221 Ouch. Hope you didn't have plans to visit, I think that might count as Lèse-majesté...

[@Jedsa009]

We bought it during the economic boom. Then, a financial crisis hit, which left RTN with little money. To be fair, though, RTN initially just wanted a big ship carrying helicopters for a disaster relief mission and other supporting roles. But for some reason, they ended up buying an aircraft carrier even though they didn't really want to.

[@YoniBaruch-y3m]

Talking further about minor carrier powers that weren’t mentioned… doesn’t Turkey have something like an aircraft carrier now?

[@justinzak5025]

BUT it has a pub on board

[@SilentFlatulence]

"That's enough fuel to fill up a Toyota Camry about 80,000 times, or a Ram 1500 long enough to reach the next gas station" "...rapid aircraft-to-submarine conversion" 💀

[@michaelbraxton2899]

I’d like to add my vote of high praise for the superior content. It’s well-organized, clear, persuasive and extremely informative. Even the humor is great. You guys just don’t seem to ever mess up!🎉

[@tdb7992]

It always amazes me that us Aussies have had three aircraft carriers - the HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne from the Majestic class, and the HMAS Vengeance from the Colossus class. Nowadays, it seems like our Gov would baulk at the idea of having such capabilities, I guess because geopolitics and doctine has changed, and we are so closely aligned with the US and UK that it makes more sense for us to support them than spend tens of billions building our own. I guess our helicopter carriers will have to do for now.

[@jordan-liah3090]

I think after the United states pulled out of South East Asia in the 70s, Australian doctrine changed from a offensive military strategy to a defence strategy. We lost the need for the carriers as our allies were half a world away. Such a shame honestly

[@silverhost9782]

The price of running a CV has shot up since then. The Majestic/Colossus' were small light carriers, about 1/4th the size of a Queen Elizabeth. Small CVs like that just don't cut it anymore, and for economies like Australia/Canada, building a 50-60k ton CV (or bigger) is just too much of an ask. Even for the UK 2 QEs was a massive undertaking

[@sir_vix]

I highly recommend a video by hypohystericalhistory on the question of potential Australian naval aviation capabilities, titled: "The F-35B Option: the Future of Australian Naval Aviation?" I'd post the link, but in my experience those tend to just vanish.

[@gherkinisgreat]

I wouldn't worry too much, you can fit F35's on a helicopter carrier, just ask the Royal Navy or US Marines

[@RobinTheBot]

Frankly there's nothing you need them for that a landing creft/small carrier with a few F-35's can't do.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

"You can't really do disaster relief with ground-launched tomahawks" - Perun, 2023 Perun always has some novel insight to impart, so we learn something from every video 😉

[@personzorz]

"Not with THAT attitude!"

[@dominuslogik484]

I literally read your comment exactly as he was saying that in the video lmao

[@AndrewYakovenko]

Well, Russia still is bold enough to claim doing something quite close to disaster relief in Ukraine with their missiles

[@dominuslogik484]

@@AndrewYakovenko I distinctly remember a certain Russian general making a claim of bombs being food parcels for Finland.... pretty sure the Finns named a certain Cocktail after the man so there was a drink to go with the food.

[@AndrewYakovenko]

@@dominuslogik484 yeah, and the people keep complaining that the world changes too fast

[@JS-te2vj]

I know you couldn't fit everything in, but as many military historians, as well as wartime leaders at the time admitted, the sinking of the Royal Navy's HMS Repulse / Prince of Wales by Japanese Air Power was a turning point - where the future of the battleship was truly considered to be limited - and the aircraft carrier was etched into naval history as the future. It's insanely ironic, because while Japan was the first ever navy to assemble a carrier strike group (they did this more out of necessity, because they were limited by international treaties preventing them from building more battleships) - they would ultimately turn back to the battleship, wasting a lot of resources building IJN Yamato and Musashi. Arguably the best battleships in the world at the time, yes, but at the same time obsolete. To add to the irony, by the end of WW2, with all their carriers sunk, and land based air corps decimated, the Japanese would send out their flagships Yamato and Musashi to battle without air cover - where they would meet the very same fate as Repulse, and Prince of Wales.

[@andersjjensen]

A fellow Drach subscriber I assume?

[@pgf289]

Kind of outlying examples though, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse had a tiny escort and no air support, having not had time to probably refit and work up after having reached Singapore. They were attacked by over 70 Japanese aircraft, most trained specifically to attack large warships. The whole engagement was very lop-sided. Likewise, Yamato and Musashi would probably been very potent, had they still had some decent air cover to allow them to close with the American fleet.

[@richardprice5978]

@@pgf289 the current Europe/Russian's/🇺🇸 proxies and now israeli/jew/USA-proxy-defences ( USA 🇺🇸 really should quit being a bossy+nosey old-lady neighbours lol aka follow Monroe doctrine as that's your decision/deal's with the rest of the world and Europe ) showed the need for uss-Montana or new jersey-( with nuke propulsion and modernisation's for 2030's ) battleship as there's really no replacement same with carriers as both have unique designs/job ones great at air support and recon and the other is great for shoreline-support and escort and or taking damages/game-tank and clearing a pathway's-ect duties and both could helpful in emergencies-support ie power-generation and cargo ect

[@ramal5708]

The post 1939 US doctrine for the war in Pacific against Japan was carrier and land based aircraft power projection, although they had War Plan Orange against Japan which contains a scenario where USN standard battleships against IJNs own battleships near Philippines, but then after Fleet Problem exercises in 1930s they finally realized that carrier centered battlefleet would be much more successful in large ocean like Pacific, plus the range from Hawaii-continental US-US Garrisons in Pacific would need sea control ability that the carriers could project. Also worth mentioning in one of the Fleet Problems USN carriers striked Hawaii in an exercise to show how vulnerable anchored warships to carrier based aircraft, this would happen again in 1941, but this time is for real. Weird that historians said that Pearl Harbor attack is drawn up by looking at RN attack on Taranto, but the actual inspiration of Taranto was from this particular Fleet Problem the USN had. Weird that the USN had a scenario like this and was unprepared in 1941 against the real deal.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

Some more interesting stuff about the Yamato: The Yamato (and the Musashi) were so big and consumed so much fuel, that the Japanese never used them. Until they suicided them at the very end of the war. The oil consumption of these molochs would have been too big. So the Yamato was at harbor and it was used as fuel depot for other ships. And the admiral resided on the Yamato of course, as flagship. Since the Yamato never saw action during the war (until the very end), it was referred to "Hotel Yamato" by Japanese soldiers / marines. Did you by any chance read the Pacific War trilogy by Ian Toll?

[@aidanmattson681]

I think a common misunderstanding about carrier vulnerability is that while the ocean is large, it also isn’t empty. Knowing something is out there is far easier than knowing that thing is a carrier. You know what looks a lot like a carrier on radar? A cargo ship. Additionally, Blip Enhancement systems mounted to escorts can create false carriers, directing attacks at less valuable assets. I always like to characterize it as a game of “Where’s Waldo” except in this case there’s five Waldos only one of which is real and if you aren’t careful either with your snooper or your strike force you may see some irreplaceable losses all against a “Waldo” that isn’t the real one. This problem was so bad that the Soviets had a policy of visually confirming a carrier after acquiring it on radar. I can’t say the life expectancy of those aircrews was great in the event of a hot war. Synthetic aperture radar mitigates this as it is harder to deceive with blip enhancement (hence its inclusion on the Tu-22MR) but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are ECM methods that can neutralize it.

[@dominuslogik484]

my father served in the navy in the late 80s and even back then they had an EW system on the ships that used multiple methods of tricking and intercepting missiles. on of the examples were inflatable radar reflectors that deploy and create copy signatures of the targeted ship, if we had those in the 80s I imagine we have gotten better at it today. I am trying to remember the other methods these systems used but I think it involved directional jamming to throw off guidance and finally tracking the target to aid the CIWS in shooting it down.

[@aidanmattson681]

@@dominuslogik484 They still have those though against SAR they’re less effective. The navy also liked putting radar reflectors on auxiliary ships to similar effect. More modern decoys like Nulka use active decoy methods kind of like MALD but for ships. EW is a fascinating topic and one that isn’t looked at nearly enough.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@aidanmattson681 MALD is probably the funniest name for a decoy to me because of the slang term "malding" or to be "mald" which is when something is making a person so mad they must be losing hair or balding because of it lol. outside of that MALD has been combat tested in Ukraine against Russia so we know it works well at least. Ukraine does seem like a really good place to test equipment that more or less sat around unused for 20-30 years; if you think about it as low risk since the tech is old anyway but knowing if any concepts were good or not is very valuable. example is that the switchblade UCAVs were not really that good, the MALD and GMLRS are extremely effective as well as Excalibur. the Bradley seems about as effective as we expected it to be, Javelin and NLAW were both very good too. hell even Patriot has been proven well in the war, I feel like a lot of systems currently available on the market benefit from documented usage in Ukraine because its increased international demand for the products by a large margin.

[@johnryan6003]

Warships emit incredible amounts of electronic signals No commercial ship does. Electronic emissions are easier to ident from space than even massive ships themselves. And, really, massive ships are very easy to tracy real time from space.

[@johnryan6003]

StarLink could be (maybe already has been) utilized to track any select electronic emissions. Or to relay that info by laser from and to other orbiting platforms.

[@WWFanatic0]

I love Perun's way with words. Things like "very rapid kinetically induced adjustment" is just the perfect euphemism for what two US carriers can do to you...

[@gamersrepublic6920]

POWERPOINT TIME

[@joshkellemen5931]

The most used weapon in the gwot

[@thisisabcoates]

69th like

[@aaronfalcon3152]

True and real

[@Daniel-ie3mt]

Perun, would you ever consider historical episodes? Your area of expertise surrounding the Vietnam War, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Korean war…

[@dangarrett8676]

An economic break down of why the CSA could never have won or how the one nut wonders nation was actually horrifically inefficient would be great

[@jeckjeck3119]

Or a breakdown of how democratization of Afganistan was impossible without enforcing strict secularism?

[@dangarrett8676]

@jeckjeck3119 that seems way too politically, socially, and religiously loaded for it to be one he'd be willing to make. I have 0 issues being wrong there and would love to see that video I just don't think it would happen

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@dangarrett8676 Yeah, but it would be nice to see.

[@skyaudi7416]

@@jeckjeck3119more the fact that the USA failed to win the hearts and mind of the people there. The Americans were foreign invaders, maybe only some people in Kabul were willing to back. Regardless Islam and decentralisation of power can go together. It’s just a matter of aligning incentives.

[@alexandrebelinge8996]

"...one is very expensive the other one spend a lot of time on fire." omg that is gold !!!

[@robertbraden4454]

"one is very expensive".... In America that is how we know its good.

[@paulg3216]

Probably the most stimulating channel on YT that is devoted to defense-related topics.

[@theflanman1986]

Your videos are second to none. Your subtle use of dry humor and the technical information delivered so smoothly are truly amazing. Thank you for giving such an in depth look into many military and geopolitical topics to hundreds of thousands of people.

[@backattackjack3857]

This channel is criminally underrated. Amazing work mate

[@metamaxis]

High quality, informative and just absolutely hilarious while also being factually accurate. This is honestly peak content. I have been binging your stuff for the last week, and it's always great.

[@dx-ek4vr]

In the event an aircraft carrier gets lost, my primary question is: how fast can it be replaced? I know building one can take quite a while, same goes with training the crew. Aircraft Carriers may not be obsolete, but they sure as hell are expensive

[@PerunAU]

you won't practically be able to contract a new carrier during a short war. If you have a reserved hull you might rush a reactivation or if one is completed but not quite in active service you might rush it into service. You don't have many options.

[@playedout148]

That would be a Pearl Harbor event. War declared, country responsible hit with everything the US military has short of nukes I suppose.

[@richardthomas598]

Yes. In a short, high intensity peer conflict, the question isn't whether the US Navy loses a carrier or not. It is how many. They are unlikely to lose a third of the fleet against anybody in that scenario, let alone more. But 1 is certain. 2 probable. 3 possible. In a long war, it becomes a question of how soon does the US start investing in building more of the things. The sooner and more put into it, the faster the replacements come.

[@ADobbin1]

If you are involved in a war like ww2 about a year assuming you have the slip available. Money, time and unions will not be an issue. The reason stuff like ships take so long in peacetime is the desire to reduce expense. This is not a concern during a war. They want all the ships last week.

[@Cinn357]

​@ADobbin1 The real problem would be certifying a new shipyard to build them. There is currently only one in the US, and the slipways are limited. Plus unions may not care, but nuclear safety does.

[@DutchSkeptic]

51:20 Colonel Triggerhappy and Major-General Hothead have now joined Perun's army, also featuring Private Conscriptovich, Sergeant Bicepsky, Captain Bullshitsky, Colonel Kleptovsky, General Oligarchov, and of course volunteers Pavel & His Mates.

[@angrydachshund]

Another excellent essay, better than anything I ever saw on PBS. Well done, and thank you.

[@seanteunissen3107]

Nothing beats a good Perun presentation on a Sunday. Time to lean back and enjoy.

[@paullakowski2509]

with a giant mug of java

[@Luke_Crmwl123]

I love how this went from a gaming channel to a military channel very cool

[@mattheww.6232]

The funnier part is his competitor is a sock puppet.

[@Luke_Crmwl123]

@@mattheww.6232 😂😂yea

[@MHalblaub]

Military uses Play Station like controllers. FPV drones are used to deliver bombs. Biathlon was called military patrol at the early winter Olympic Games. So why not? Game and war was always connected (chess).

[@Luke_Crmwl123]

@@MHalblaub yea

[@dylanwight5764]

"In conclusion, though my government apparently disagrees, the development of either very long range land based naval attack aviation or the ability to facilitate their deployment at sea is REALLY FREAKING COOL"

[@aste4949]

"Rapid aircraft-to-submarine conversion" 🤣 Perun, I always love your humor and enjoyed it as much as the rest of the video! Especially enjoyed the amount of it in the "What makes a carrier" section.

[@toastermon2272]

Somewhere out there, some part of the kusnetzov is burning. It's probably possessed by a fire demon, the fire goes out, the ship goes under.

[@MM22966]

A strangely appealing idea.

[@terrinils3165]

It's always a surreal feeling when hearing people talk about the might of Aircraft Carriers. For people who work and live on them, it's just a dangerous, loud, frustrating, rusted hunk of metal. All that power becomes mundane.

[@pspublic13]

The same is true of any career. I work with pretty sophisticated liquid handling and transfer machines that can transfer nano-liters at a time. It was cool for a few weeks. Now it is another box I clean and maintain among many. Familarity breeds contempt.

[@skepticalbadger]

Are you really never even a bit awed by standing on all that power? Not even watching aircraft launch?

[@Rob_F8F]

Tremendous might can and does come from dangerous, loud, frustrating hunks of metal. Anyone who works in construction, mining, petroleum, or heavy industries will share your sentiment.

[@terrinils3165]

@skepticalbadger I've never had the pleasure of seeing a Carrier launch. I've either been onboard as it was launching or not around when another Carrier happened to be launching. I've done line handling when a Carrier came back to port. As for feeling awed, I did when I first got to my command, but that feeling quickly dissipated after a month. I started in AIMD maintenance before becoming an Ordnance Technician. I got to see almost every inch of the ship, even the CIC, Officer Ward Rooms, Combat Ready Rooms, and the Bridge. The only places I wasn't allowed to go were the Reactor spaces and magazines. A Carrier is big. You can meet somebody on the first day of deployment, then spend nine months out at sea without ever seeing them again. But eventually, you get to the point where you can navigate whole sections of the ship blindfolded.

[@gzer0x]

Reminds me of a guy who worked at the Federal Reserve. He sees a pallet of a hundred million dollars and thinks “man that’s a 30 minute unload…”

[@Retrosicotte]

The QE are such interesting carriers. It's easy to go "Oh, no cats, so cats better" but the F-35B actually outperforms the Charles de Gaulle's launch limits for the Rafale M (as per the French themselves that it can't launch at full weight compared to details of the UK' and USN's own testing showing the F-35 can). Goes to show the importance of a generational difference in aircraft tech. There's so much complexity and context between carriers that "simple rules" never really apply. Many simply overlook because STOVL and assume it means less, but it's not always.

[@immortallvulture]

I feel like too much commentary on the QE class focuses on what they don’t have (nuclear propulsion, cats and traps) instead of what they actually deliver, a modern supercarrier capability with much lower through life costs and manpower requirements than most of its peers.

[@guillaumefigarella1704]

What do you mean by launch limit for the rafale m? More aircraft launched or aircraft launching with more ordnance by weight?

[@Retrosicotte]

@@guillaumefigarella1704 How much ordnance it can carry with it. The French Air Force has excplicitly stated it's much less than the normal land launch limit. Only 1 cruise missile rather than 2, or 2 less bombs than normal, even if it's closer, highlighting the fuel reduction. Remember the CdG's catapults are quite small for catobar, they are substantially weaker than ones off a Nimitz or Ford.

[@Clickworker101]

Also, the STOL aircraft can be a net win if the runways are destroyed

[@dogsnads5634]

@@immortallvulture For some reason people forget that the escorts are all conventionally powered and need refuelling as well.... But if you really want to blow their mind....telll them that the QE Class are actually the fastest in service carriers.....and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future...

[@stephennelson4954]

I would love to see a sequel to this video with Drachnifel, Ward Carol, etc. would be epic.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

That would be a pretty epic team-up. 🙂

[@MrAstrojensen]

I'm pretty sure there are legal restrictions to how much dry humor you can put into one video, and that having both Perun AND Drachinifel in the same video would exceed that limit by a fairly large margin.

[@l00k69]

Drach doesn't cover modern ships though

[@Grak70]

Something else interesting that Nimitz and Ford class carriers can do in a soft power / disaster relief role is provide fresh drinking water. The RO (and in older ships, steam flash tank, or distillation column) systems on board can pump out hundreds of thousands of gallons of desalinated drinking water a day.

[@MGerdtell]

I love your dry humor. "The difference between the Gerald R Ford and the Andmiral Kuznetzov is that one is very expensive and the other spends a lot of its spare time on fire."

[@jasonhernandez1182]

Babe! Wake up! The new Perun just dropped!

[@nuclearllama7239]

Star destroyers and American supercarriers is an incredibly good comparison for the zoomer audience

[@unowno123]

spoiler warning for the US space navy

[@merlijnsiffels3292]

Most Zoomers probably don't know what star destroyers are

[@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

Zoomers watch Star Wars and actually draw conclusions from it? Either way, I got a chuckle from the start of the video too.

[@GintaPPE1000]

I'd actually say Arleigh Burke is a better analogue to the Star Destroyer. Both are almost monolithic symbols of their respective navies, as they make up the overwhelming majority of hulls in service. And both are used in a number of roles for which they're vastly overkill and a smaller ship should be used instead - incidentally, that often involve chasing smugglers too. Yet, just like the Empire just threw more ISDs at their problems rather than adapt their equipment and doctrine, we just kept cranking more Burkes out (73 in service now with 18 more well on the way) in the 2000s and 2010s to replace everything, because we knew how to build them and they did what we need our surface combatants to do. Even if they were manpower-heavy, had major limitations, and were very expensive for what we used them for, politicians were so scared of a Zumwalt repeat they'd rather deal with a long list of known flaws instead. At least the ship is beginning to right itself in the real world.

[@raxit1337]

I think star wars belongs to the previous generation before zoomers :D

[@blasfisken]

Seeing the new @PerunAU video drop every Sunday is the true highlight of the week. Thank you for your work. It's truly amazing how you can compile such high-quality content week after week!

[@jakelilevjen9766]

The Aegis destroyers have some pretty capable defensive systems to keep the carrier safe. SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 come to mind.

[@LeonAust]

Add total protection with ESSM, 127mm gun, Phalanx CIWS, ECM, Nulka, ESM, RBOC, ASROC, Triple torpedo tubes, Seahawk MH-60R, Tomahawk, Harpoon, soon to be VL-LRASM and networked to all major assets.

[@jakelilevjen9766]

@@LeonAust Oh, and RAM

[@LeonAust]

ahahahahaha yes RAM🤣@@jakelilevjen9766

[@steemlenn8797]

@@jakelilevjen9766 There is no such thing as too much RAM. Or disc space.

[@EmsThaBreaks441]

Ah yes, the one video in over a year of content that comes close to the one topic that for this channel is off limits - AUKUS from an Australian Defence Economics perspective

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Honestly the smartest thing for Oz probably would have been to buy large AIP and/or Li-Ion SSKs from Japan. Or maybe partner with Sweden. Japan’s ship-building capacity is second only to China’s (South Korea is third.) Japan’s naval budget is roughly the same as Britain’s but their fleet is roughly 3-4 times as large & more modern.

[@LeonAust]

Oh come on! bullshit Britain has to pay for 4 x SSBN subs and the nuclear missiles that arm it.....Japan doesn't. As for Oz having Nuclear subs they are a deterrent against China and that includes their claim to the South China Sea and Taiwan. Tell me how can a conventional sub dictate terms that far away from Australia, time on station for a Collins sub in the south china sea is 11 days while time on station for a AUKUS sub will be the food available 3 to 4 months@@grahamstrouse1165

[@ElementalNimbus]

This is one of those topics that I've actually been curious about for a long time but would have never thought to ask you to cover. As such, I'm about 150% excited for it. Score one for data nerds and the power they have to read minds.

[@latso10]

Looking forward to this one, thanks for all you do to help us level up our understanding!

[@dernwine]

There has been so much ink spilled over the UK's decision to buy STOVL F-35B, so a few things I'd like to add: CATOBAR has a bigger training burden than STOVL, and the French Navy only manages to qualify it's pilots by borrwing deck time from the US, not so the RN (which also has experience operating in the south atlantic with STOVL carriers and feels, perhaps with justification that it might not have been able to operate CATOBAR sorties in some of the weather conditions that it did with the Harrier Force). The other issue I'd quickly like to highlight is that while yes the RAF has ended up with the F-35B, for a rather small airforce the FAA/RAF have now a neat trick up their sleeves. While the Italian Navy for example is limited to it's 30 odd F-35B's, while the Airforce flies it's A's, the RAF can, at a moments notice embark all of it's F-35s onto the two carriers and suddenly surge their capacity. *edit* Doesn't Thailand operate an Aircraft carrier just for cocktail parites and parades?

[@aaronleverton4221]

Yes. It is literally the world's smallest aircraft carrier and largest bathtub toy. it's a bit like Emutopia that way.

[@pougetguillaume4632]

It's far more limiting to HAVE to buy a single type of aircraft than to train with your allies. It's hard to see the US ever saying no to a cross country training exercise, meanwhile parts that break in an aircraft need to be replaced and therefore brought in, regardless of how political sheninigans turn out there will always be constraint in logistics, time and availability. The fact the CDG can even hold up the a QE is insane to think about, it's a fairly old design with older generation aircraft that's also quite small. By the time the PANG rolls out the QE will have been outclassed in every single regards except plane generation, even more so if there's a second PANG. Also the QE will have to shape 6th gen fighter procurement if it wants to maintain its edge. If the 6th gen fighter isn't vtol capable then they will be stuck with f-35 when everyone else moves onto 6th gen, placing it in the shoes of the CDG currently while also being objectively worse at everything else too. The only good thing that came out of making the class vtol was the ability to make 2 of them, france isn't sure if it wants another PANG. But in every other regard the QE is going to become a relic much sooner that it should've been, it won't retain it's edge for long.

[@Retrosicotte]

@@pougetguillaume4632Except CdG cannot hold up to QE at all. It's smaller, carries much less aicraft, much less stores, is slower and the planes it carries are shorter ranged with lower takeoff loads. QE is a quantum leap ahead of CdG.

[@pougetguillaume4632]

@@Retrosicotte "carries much less aircraft" Right the QE has a normal carry capacity of 36 fighters, the CDG? Maximum 36 fighters............ Yes the QE has a bigger carry capacity but not "much" and only in large deployement, want to know why the maximum is 36 for the CDG? Because unlike the QE it can carry a fancy piece of equipement that enables a carrier strike group to be even more dangerous than it normally is: an hawkeye, 2 to be more precise. Sure it doesn't carry bombs but this thing is absolutely essential to any proper american carrier group and is completly absent from british carriers for obvious reasons. What i mean by the CDG being even comparable at all to the QE isn't that its' better, faster, stronger, but simply more useful, it is endurant on missions and provides capabilities that are simply put, inexistant on the QE. This is why the CDG is comparable, it does things the QE cannot while being remarkably similar in harder factor like carry capacity, aircraft range. Not a quantum leap lol, barely a hop

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@RetrosicotteThe De Gaulle is a much more capable carrier than the QEs. It actually has planes, for starters.

[@cindela2028]

This is an amazingly academic video. some of the best objectivity and with an ability to truly look at a situation from every perspective. great job giving context and prompting to think critically

[@Admiral.Buttercup]

Sorry you're sick - God willing you'll be up and running at full speed again soon. This was absolutely a joy to watch. Thank you!

[@priyan605]

This is actually a great video topic, I don't know if it will get views but I would love to see more such videos in the future

[@JosephKano]

I think it's going to get a decent amount of views. PowerPoint man delivers. 😻

[@FLUFFYCAT_PNW]

I'm actually up at the right time to get this video fresh from the tap. Feels like a special occasion. Your videos and analysis have been awesome to get to experience. Thanks for what you do.

[@AhegaoComics]

While it was a torpedo hit that caused the damage, the IJN Taiho was essentially destroyed by bad damage control. "Taihō's chief damage control officer eventually ordered the ship's general ventilation system switched to full capacity and, where possible, all doors and hatches opened to try to rid the ship of fumes. However, this just resulted in saturation of areas previously unexposed to the vapors and increased the chances of accidental or spontaneous ignition.[24][25] About 14:30 that afternoon, 6½ hours after the initial torpedo hit, Taihō was jolted by a severe explosion."

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Japanese damage control in WWII was pretty dreadful, particularly carrier damage control. Catastrophic detonations were the norm, not the exception, when they lost carriers. I suspect that a time-traveling Michael Bay may have had a hand in Japanese carrier design in the ‘30s & ‘40s.

[@MrAstrojensen]

@@grahamstrouse1165 It was probably not the design per se, but the training and procedures. Drachinifel has made some interesting videos about it. The general idea is that everyone on board a US warship were trained to immediately begin fighting a fire, without awaiting orders. On a Japanese ship, no one did anything, unless given direct orders, as that would be considered insubordination.

[@JustinWheeler_LA]

Perun, you're one of the only channels I watch at 1.0 speed. Far from an insult, my friend, it's just that you're info is so condensed and thorough. Keep up the great work.

[@andreasottohansen7338]

How do you understand anything at higher speeds than x1?

[@Executioner9000]

Perun seems to have baught the Japanese story that the Izumo and Kaga are not in fact "aircraft carriers" 😉

[@grahamstrouse1165]

They’re small carriers. They can carry about a F-35s.

[@Executioner9000]

@@grahamstrouse1165 I know this, but the JNSDF calls them "Helicopter Destroyers"

[@Nelsonwmj]

@@Executioner9000 Well yes, they have the capability to destroy helicopters... hence "helicopter destroyer". Geddit? (wink wink)

[@ThatOneDudeNextDoor]

The Japanese are not to be trusted, lying, genocide denying MFs

[@Destroyer_V0]

I mean. They can destroy helicopters rather well with their ability to deliver small anti air missiles to their targets, at a far greater range than most sam systems.

[@tbthegr81]

The ability to resuply a bomber near the enemy base was always the best case to pay the big pricetag for a aircraft carrier in Advance Wars

[@nathanthanatos3743]

I love how his channel has evolved to the point where he can refer the viewer back to his oen videos multiple times in the course of discussion.

[@aliasalias8433]

This guy keeps pumping out high quality content like it´s nothing. You got quite some work ethics there (cope and past, because true).

[@pelimania2786]

Excellent video. Hope you're feeling better

[@anthonywilliams5093]

Used to work at a shipyard in "Virginia". This was a vary well rounded overview of the advantages and treadoffs of the con's, well done. I learned some new things from your report, thank you.

[@Flippyfloppy007]

When’s this guy gonna hit 500k subs! He deserve 1M+

[@mike4480]

…Thanks Perun,…always an interesting time/ well spent listen…..💙💛💙

[@QALibrary]

20:05 correction @Perun There was no cost overrun per say on this project of the UK aircraft carriers - there was a big argument over cost/design but when agreed upon there were no issues. The then-Labour government made a fixed-price agreement and everyone was sticking to the design and fixed cost. The new Conservative government then asked for a redesign mainly due to infighting and political defence groups wanting their design to win the design contract. So after 75% of one ship was completed and 25% of another was completed - the new government asked for a review of the aircraft carriers to a new design. This in turn delayed the aircraft construction by up to 1 to 2 years - During that time the government was asked to pay a £350 to £380 million resigned review costs and was told this would also break the fixed cost agreement. And the idiots of the government went ahead with the redesign review. QED the ship construction price went up from £1.5bn each to £3bn each and the UK ended up with the same aircraft carriers because the result of the delays was if you want Z instead of X that was agreed upon we have to start again from scratch because the design you want will never work into what we built already.

[@silverhost9782]

Classic British government moment

[@dogsnads5634]

You've missed off the bit where the Treasury delayed the build by a year to generate some in year savings....which were dwarfed by the £1.5bn extra the delay cost...

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

That's the Tories for you. Clueless and corrupt to a man.

[@joansparky4439]

reeks of too much power in too few hands.. the UK is really a laggard when it comes to it's political processes compared to what other nations do (while no one really is a top performer)

[@heraklesnothercules.]

*per se... it's Latin. 🙂

[@disbeafakename167]

Whoa hoo! Baby! I'm skippin' church, Perun's on time!

[@jonesy279]

“There might be a window where they can start shit without immediately getting hit.” Absolutely love your work mate!

[@joshuachapman247]

Great video, thanks for getting this one out.

[@TemplinInstitute]

Yeah, but what about space aircraft carriers?

[@paulanerruhrpott6188]

Yeah, what about Galactica?

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Why would you fly aircraft in space, assuming you could? If you wish to attack ground or sea-based targets from space, you fling dense objects at them, perhaps palladium rods. You want something that can survive entry into the atmosphere without losing too much mass to ablation. You want that mass to hit with great velocity. Targeting could be a problem, so it might be a good idea to fire huge salvos rather than design onboard guidance systems that will survive entering the atmosphere. Such a “simple” system will cost you many times what a carrier will cost. It comes with its own vulnerabilities, such as high velocity bits of metal flying about in orbit. Your space advantage can be quickly denied by the adversary creating orbital space junk.

[@emilsinclair4190]

​@MarcosElMalo2 easy. Relativity. The speed you can react to something is limited by the speed of light. Already having a small group equipped with weapons and someone that can react in the area (the plane) is a big advantage.

[@Warszawski_Modernizm]

Hello Perun. Watching, listening and taking notes in Warsaw, Poland. Always a fan, keep winning bro!

[@BNRmatt]

I for one eagerly await the Polish announcement they're acquiring a supercarrier of their own. It seems like the Poles want everything else...

[@Warszawski_Modernizm]

@@BNRmatt Touche. PLN " Joseph Pilsudski" with some airplane/ chopper abilities would go a long way when it comes to interrupting soviet shipping lanes across Baltic. Also 6 new submarines- 2 sub divisions

[@badjuju2721]

YES MY TWO FAVORITE THINGS!!!! AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND POWER POINTS

[@cmajaa1]

Something to keep in mind is no Aircraft Carrier operates alone, usually a six ship Destroyer/Guided Missile Cruiser screen deployed around the carrier at horizon distance as well as a resupply ship and a fast attack sub in the neighborhood.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Unfortunately, modern carrier battle groups rarely have more than 4-5 escorts. And the US no longer as at-sea replenishment capability. They’re working to restore that but the fact of the matter is that if you’re facing off against a land-based power you’ll run out of missiles long before they do.

[@njpme]

​@@grahamstrouse1165the U.S still does at sea replenishment. How do you think they get fuel for aircrafts, food, fuel for cruisers and destroyers?

[@romanmanner]

@@grahamstrouse1165Yes it does; that’s a basic function of any blue water navy. America pretty much perfected it.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@grahamstrouse1165You sure you don’t mean at-sea VLS reloads? That was something the US tried in the past (it was horrifically dangerous and we never really did it at scale), and we probably won’t try again. But we do replenishment all the time.

[@trolleriffic]

@@grahamstrouse1165 Only 4 or 5 escorts for an entire carrier battle group? Those girls are going to busy! Seriously though, surely the US has an at-sea replenishment capability. Given the unmatched logistical capabilities of the US military in general and the fact that even the Royal Navy in its rather tragic current state can do it, I'd have thought it was absolutely essential to naval operations.

[@Mike7O7O]

Academically rigorous. Very informative with great sign posting for those who wish to dive deeper. Delivered like a broadcast professional. Love the dark humour throw-ins. Thank you! 😜

[@MaeLSTRoM1997]

57:37 "A long range missile force for example might be an alternative to long ranged strike, but you can't really do disaster relief with ground-launched tomahawks" This is only partially true because it depends on what kind of disaster you want to provide a relief from. For example if the disaster in concern is my career choices, then a single tomahawk delivered at terminal velocity will suffice in lieu of the more traditional form of relief.

[@trapical]

After describing how expensive they are, "And then there's the question of how many you plan on buying! Even though just the thought of that question might make some treasury officials physically ill" This made me giggle for a good 15 seconds. Love the humor you mix into all the facts.

[@raxit1337]

Love the navy themed videos. I'd love a video on, for example, the PLA Navy. Hope you're well, mate.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

That’s an excellent idea.

[@trueandonlyfandre]

I visited Minsk World in Shenzhen when it was stil open. It had a Casino in its Hangar deck at the time and some old aircrafts on the landing deck.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

44:03 Ah, a random "Itano Circus" #Macross reference, this is the quality content I've come to expect.

[@anonviewerciv]

27:17 The role of carriers in humanitarian operations is something I find fascinating as a justification of military spending in support of civil efforts. 🕊🌊🛫 43:43 I think I see where the Red Alert Dreadnought came from. 🚀🚀🚢

[@mill2712]

I know. Even though they are most definitely weapons of war, they all have their uses outside of conflict and power projection.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@mill2712Not worth it at the price.

[@MM22966]

Didn't the Kiwis recently buy a (very) small amphib carrier specifically designed for humanitarian ops? Yeah, HMNZS Canterbury.

[@SomeGuy-hy9zf]

The dry humor is so awesome. For a Dodge truck, that’s enough to get to the next gas station

[@EricEngle-f1q]

Kuznetzov is nowhere near so capable as Liaoning to say nothing of Shandong. It literally needs a tug, regularly has accidents water system is shit, literally only 2 heads... for the entire ship.

[@gordonmac3616]

It the only carrier in the world with a functioning poop deck - ruski mir

[@propagandalf577]

Great video, once again. Hope you get better soon!

[@Dennan]

get well perun!

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

I again shall take to paraphrasing The Chieftain: it’s not a question of vulnerability, but of capabilities, what does a weapon or system bring to the table. If systems were rendered obsolete by weapons that could defeat them, than infantry would have been rendered obsolete 10000 years ago.

[@mduckernz]

The human body is ridiculously vulnerable but it has the distinct advantage of being paired, ideally, with a human brain - which is the real reason it’s never been replaced in its role A day will come where this happens but not for some time I suspect, general AI is much harder than most think

[@trolleriffic]

@@mduckernz The human body also has the distinct disadvantage of being paired with a human brain, and we all know what trouble they can cause!

[@ether23-23]

@@trolleriffic Dirty meatbags

[@timfogelson7076]

I was curious why you skipped the Italians and the Japanese carriers. I know the Izumo and Kaga are called destroyers, but they both can land and carry F-35s. Anyways its a great work as always, thank you for all your hard work.

[@johnryan6003]

Spread those plans out. On smaller ships Make denial of access sooooo much harder

[@amk4956]

Speaking of prototype issues, I remember watching a documentary of the Nimitz first deployment in the Pacific… Needless to say it went through a wormhole and went back to December 6, 1941 and had it not found the return wormhole it likely would’ve participated in the defense of Pearl Harbor… I’m starting to think that might not have been a documentary

[@Shadowguy456234]

Thought I recognized that avatar. Greetings, fellow Majority Report listener ;) And greetings from Switzerland, where you find locally-supported agriculture pretty much everywhere - cows grazing right in the middle of a suburban neighborhood! It's madness I tell you!

[@amk4956]

@@Shadowguy456234 that sounds like a good type of madness lol

[@WViper26]

"...undergo rapid aircraft-to-submarine conversion". Lol, Perun, your dry wit in these videos is just excellent! Thanks again for all of your great content!

[@nomadtv6009]

Your keen and organized presentation combined with your dry biting humor make these videos world class. Bravo!

[@mikegould6590]

Okay. A drone carrier is terrifying, and is the obvious evolution of the design. It both magnifies how many airframes one can project, as well as reducing possible carrier size and cost.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Not really. A drone carrier is redundant.

[@mikegould6590]

@@grahamstrouse1165 You misunderstand me. These aren't necessarily the drones already in use. These are drones that mimic fighter dynamics and deployment. These drones, already in development, would mean more airframes per ship (smaller, less weight), less cost, less risk to personnel, and more range than standard drones. A carrier for this platform is not at all redundant. It's evolution.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@mikegould6590Just use a normal carrier. The USN does feasibility studies on smaller sized carriers like multiple times a year and every single times concludes that decreases in size lowers sortie rates so much that it isn’t worth it.

[@tobin9575]

you realise that smaller drones with less payload are just going to be less capable than fighter size drones. There is no reason to design new carriers that take forever to build and design when you can just design a drone that suits the carrier....

[@mduckernz]

@@tobin9575Not necessarily, the kinds of designs that would never suit having a person in them might be able to be launched and landed in ways that also would never suit a person, which in turn would likely require a differently designed carrier It would serve the same role but operate quite differently

[@Cinn357]

Perun is doing Navy today!!! Babe! Wake T F up!

[@airborneranger-ret]

4 minutes in, 26 comments. 9:00 - "One of them spends a lot of it's spare time on fire" - lol 10:00 - "... fill up a Prius 80,00 times or a RAM 1500 long enought to reach the next gas station" - lol

[@AlexanderLamle]

I basically did my dissertation on this very topic back in 2014!

[@EffequalsMA]

You sound a ok to me. Topic very interesting this week!

[@robert506007]

5:25 there is one thing you did miss about the early days of carriers Perun. The thing that I believe Drachinifel points out which a lot of early aircraft in the 10's and 20's that could fly off carriers couldn't carry a large enough payload to be effective as an antiship weapon or bomber. While this ability would be gained with future aircraft, at the time it just wasn't really an ability and that ability wouldn't really be present until the carrier aircraft just prior to the war. So in short carriers in the early days very much were still secondary to Battleships. If an alternate WWII had somehow occured in the late 20's early 30's the battleships and other surface assets would have remained the prime fighting element where carriers would at least intially (war trend to drive development so we can assume that aircraft development would have reached the historical WWII level sooner) would have been a scouting and scout hunting asset with limited antiship and land attack potential in the 10's, 20's and most of the 30's on the simple fact of lacking capable aircraft (a problem the US Navy has today) the aircraft of the times on carriers lacked range speed and payload to be much more than scouts. Development did change that but at the time Saratoga and Lexington or any other carrier of the era where not the assets they would become in WWII based on their airwings development. A futher side note would be that Billy Michille's sinking of the Ostfriesland was A done with land base Bombers of the era not carrier aircraft of the time B as usual not a manned manuvering target that could do damage control or shoot back and C it took multiple runs before they caused enough damage to sink the ship and this was with the heavy bombers of the time. So the officer was correct for the time based on current abilities of aircraft in the 20's but he did not account for future development.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

True dat.

[@ianshaver8954]

One thing I’d like to add: range is safety. The more range you have, the farther away from the danger you can operate, and the safer you become. A USN super carrier using F35C is going to be safer than a USMC carrier using F35B because it can operate from farther away.

[@death_parade]

Add to it how larger carriers permit aerial refuellers like that blended wing body drone that your americans are testing. In medium carriers like ours, we have to rely on buddy refuelling. Which makes our smaller airwing even smaller.

[@skepticalbadger]

The RAF have been providing a significant portion of the carrier air wing for decades now (Joint Force Harrier onwards). The Fleet Air Arm is not what once was. They HAVE to have maritime capable jets.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

I’m still baffled by the Brit’s decision to give away their Harriers. They’re a little long in the tooth but they’re still pretty capable. The QE only had 17 operational F-35s during her first patrol, and ~50% were US Marine Corps fighters. The Brits don’t have enough money to field enough F-35s on the QEs to make them relevant.

[@KB4QAA]

@@grahamstrouse1165 Logistics. The cost of maintaining two different jets is horrendous and a mess aboard ship. (old carrier guy).

[@trolleriffic]

@@grahamstrouse1165 We have more than enough money. The problem is government spending priorities and complacency on defence in general.

[@robertcocklin314]

I keep finding this channel to be on my required news list. I have learned so much more about geopolitics here than on at least 99% of the talking heads I used to listen too.

[@rinkadink66]

Very interesting... thanks for your hard work...cheers..

[@LongPeter]

Admiral Kuznetsov isn't an aircraft carrier; it's a punchline.

[@Tyrs_Finox]

Well it's not nuclear modernization (I vote for this EVERY TIME! 😅 ), but carriers are a fascinating topic, good video as always.

[@lewisyeadon4046]

Ultimately, the fact that there is such a diversity of different Carrier types, eg: Fleet, Escort, Light, Helicopter, Landing Docks (and their associated types), Amphibious Assault (and their associated types), Cruise Missile, Hybrid Battleship, etc, indicates tbat this type of ship will never go away. There will always be a need to land troops on a shore somewhere, and therefore a need for long range, mobile strikes by amphibious assault ships with aircraft. There will always be a need for air cover of a fleet, and therefore a fleet carrier. These are not tasks that can be performed by any other kind of platform. Sure, a destroyer can launch a tonne of missiles against a position, but it can't provide aerial obersation and precision attacks as well as a strike fighter can. The Battleship disappeared because guns can be replaced by missiles and armour subsequently became pointless. Its mission was sufficiently dispersed and replaced. The opposite has occured with aircraft carriers.

[@judithcampbell1705]

Thank you 💛 so much Perun, I hope you feel better soon!!!

[@MARGATEorcMAULER]

As fast paced and comprehensive as always, didn't even notice any difference. Get well soon Sir!

[@kakwa]

@32:00 Small correction: Chantiers de l'Atlantique in Saint-Nazaire never built a CVN. CDG was built by the Brest Arsenal (now Naval Group). However, Chantiers de l'Atlantique did build Foch back in the 50ies, a conventional CATOBAR, and it's pretty much the only Dockyard in France capable to accommodate PA-NG (Brest is too small).

[@Channel-23s]

America getting two new Carriers in the coming years so that’s 13-14 overall vs the world that has what 9-10 combined so I’d say that’s a good advantage and being around the world ready for quick response times and retaliation/retribution

[@tonysu8860]

Carriers like the Eisenhower now deployed to the Middle East are near EOL and will be decommissioned soon. The US expects to continue to maintain and operate 11 aircraft carriers and no more.

[@youngthinker1]

around @3:00 you mentioned the mark one eyeball I am terrified to consider what a mark two or three eyeball is.

[@andrewharrison8436]

Mark 1.5 was the telescope. Mark 2 zoom lens implants. Mark 3 still classified, I can't say more.

[@dogloversrule8476]

Maybe they’re eye prosthetics

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

That's when we get to genetic engineering, that one hasn't been unlocked yet.

[@dogloversrule8476]

@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts & sadly pay to win won’t work with this tech tree

[@Macdunne]

Thanks again for another well researched topic especially considering you are under the weather. Hope you feel better soon.

[@jludtmanable]

Awesome analysis and entertaining presentation. That my good man is why I never miss one of your casts.