I've spent 18 months of my life onboard an aircraft carrier, Enterprise & Eisenhower. They see tremendous when you first get onboard. They become extremely small after 5 days. Also, they're deceptively fast, especially the Enterprise.
@TheRedKing2474 жыл бұрын
@Andrew Smith You mean the punishment for the idiots in high command who don't listen to their ship captains for fear of the wrath of the despot-in-command, right?
@Natogoon4 жыл бұрын
The American military has all the ingredients for a massive military disaster in the next major conflict.
@jamespoteat93614 жыл бұрын
Mao LongDong so do the Chinese because they copy everything we do.
@Natogoon4 жыл бұрын
James Poteat China has a strong centralized command structure. Something America could only wish to copy.
@B-Kun4 жыл бұрын
@@Natogoon What war did they use that in again? Your NCO structure has nothing to it. The backbone of the military will show itself.
@Gabriel-sdf4 жыл бұрын
The greatest threat to carriers are their price tag, too damn expensive.
@kumanon94664 жыл бұрын
Bingo!
@jiaqiwang52634 жыл бұрын
US CHINA and RUSSIA can afford them, so it’s not that big of a deal
@GuyFromTheSouth4 жыл бұрын
Thats why America is such an illusive powerhouse. Its hard to attack us on our land. We are surrounded by ocean and we have the money for ridiculous naval power.
@patrickbueno32793 жыл бұрын
@@jiaqiwang5263 maybe in peace time, but the problem is that if super carrier are sink down it would still be a huge impact. The US might much afford that price tag, but that is still one of its biggest weakness.
@sapphyrus3 жыл бұрын
@@patrickbueno3279 Indeed, as soon as a carrier is sunk, the rest of them will be taken back from action. Jutland and Midway are good examples of the mindset of commanders when they realize their irrepleceable assets can be taken out in a decisive battle. Peer battles are way different from safely bombarding enemy from behind their range.
@tomashagecranz50444 жыл бұрын
You forgot to mention the Swedish submarine that went through a whole battlegroup and sank a US carrier. It was just a training excercis. But it did. They couldn't pick up the sub. Even though they tried for more than a month I believe.
@Dr.Westside4 жыл бұрын
It did happen , but so far as anybody knows , it was just once .
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
Gothus sum, cave cornua.
@TheOwenMajor4 жыл бұрын
The Swedish sub was a diesel-electric sub, much quieter than nuclear submarines as they can shut their engines down completely. The issue, however, is that they suffer from poor underwater range and low speed. In an actual high alert situation, the carrier would be going much faster than a Gotland class could keep up with, and likely stay farther offshore out of effective range. In addition, we don't know the specifics of how the ASW was being conducted. I highly doubt they had picket ships pining away with active sonar and submarines pinging away with sonobuoys.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@TheOwenMajor So they took out the AIP drive and put a d/e in? Why? And when did it happen? Didn't a Chinese Song surface in range of a US carrier that was actually at 'high alert'? Wow 2 whole years they threw everything at the Gotland and forgot to use active sonar and buoys? Boy is the USN stupid or what right? lol ...
@TheOwenMajor4 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage "Wow 2 whole years they threw everything at the Gotland" Citation needed. You mind telling us how you know this? I'm sure the NSA servers are dying to know. While silent subs are great against passive sonar, there isn't anything that can protect you very well against active sonar except range. P.S. The AIP is an auxiliary system to the D/E. While the AIP provides greater range than batteries, it has far less range compared to surface diesel operation. And it should be noted the Gotland can reportedly only make 5 knots while on AIP.
@joshcrys4 жыл бұрын
Hey there Binkov, this was a good one, well thought out and clearly stated good job!
@SgtMjr4 жыл бұрын
Reminds me of the old Dos game 'Harpoon'. Still have the floppies around here somewhere. It was a great game to play out 80's era Russia v US Naval Combat
@billhanna21484 жыл бұрын
I remember that well 😎.. my favorite was defending Keflavik (wrong spelling) awesome game spent DAYS playing it.
@SgtMjr4 жыл бұрын
@Joakim von Anka I played a miniatures Harpoon at a war game convention back in the day. Larry Bond and Tom Clancy were there although I didn't know them from my elbow. We played a Falkland Islands War.
@andyf42924 жыл бұрын
on pc now.. theres the command series, theyre on steam...
@biggsydaboss34104 жыл бұрын
It's been a long time since I got to stick my 3.5 inch floppy into a C drive lol.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@biggsydaboss3410 US nuclear arsenal still runs on floppies. ;-)
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
Well, for the US doctrine, there's no other way aside from increasing the aerial tanker fleet or putting more airbase in allied countries to project air power oversea. Basically, there's no practical alternative to the carrier to fulfill US' strategic needs. I doubt the carrier will become obsolete, it'll just evolve. The invention of guns doesn't make human soldier obsolete because there's no viable alternative to replace them, the same can be said for carrier. There's a reason why Russia and China sought its own supercarrier.
@bogdanbogdanoff51644 жыл бұрын
Soviet union had a defensive carrier doctrine. They would be used to provide air defense for the fleet operations in Barent's sea and protect SSBN "fortified regions" close to the USSR territorial borders. The main mission would be ASW, which is why they carried ~12 ASW helicopters in a normal loadout.
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 True, because US submarines are designed to hunt and fight other submarines. Soviet's naval doctrine is largely protecting its SSBNs and prevent NATO incursion into the Barents Sea. Soviet'submarines are more for anti-ship role and nuclear deterrence.
@bogdanbogdanoff51644 жыл бұрын
Offensive carrier operations can become impossible in the coming decade, that is against a capable opponent. Just because there's no alternative for the user, doesn't mean the doctrine and the vessels won't become obsolete and vulnerable. Invention of a machinegun did in fact kill millions of infantrymen in WW1
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 Ironically carriers were more vulnerable during World War 2 than the entire span of the Cold War. The current carrier strategy might become obsolete, but the vessel itself may not. Currently, carrier-based aerial tankers are a stop-gap measure. The difficult part about sinking the carrier isn't about physically sinking it - that is relatively an easy part. The real hard part is securing your kill chain, which if even one link is disrupted, could prevent you from engaging the carrier. Well, infantry didn't became obsolete after millions died from the machine gun. But it did change the way they fight. The carrier is staying further away from the shore as a reaction, but that is just one part of the game of cat-and-mouse. A combination of electronic warfare, anti-missile defense, and extending the range of the aircraft are on the table. It's expected that carriers will become smaller and more automated to reduce the loss of human life if one is lost.
@nottoday38174 жыл бұрын
@@mickeyg7219 Technically, carriers were not less vulnerable in the Cold War than during WW2. Technologically speaking, they were even more vulnerable. What made them such powerhouses was the lack of opponents. Since WW2 no 2 nations with green or blue navies went toe to toe against each other. Perhaps the only close example was the Falklands war, but there the tech and size gap between the British fleet and Argentinian navy was pretty much deceisive. Mind you, it was the end of WW2, Japan barely had any pilots left, no carriers, no proper ships and barely any airplanes. and yet one pilot and one plane put the legendary Enterprise on the execution table. The issue with carriers is pretty complex and experience does not provide us any clear examples for the future. Like WW1 generals were shit in WW2 because they failed to understand armored and combined weapons warfare like the Germans did (and the Soviets to some extent). In most post-belic wars that saw the carriers being used, nobody actually went to strike at the carrier, because US forces always had air bases on the ground as primary way of delivering air ordinance. And the trend continued even more pronounced after the Korean War. Furthermore, Binkov made one big mistake. Ranges of carrier borne aircraft have actually become smaller. The latest variants of F-18 SuperHornet E cannot touch 1000miles on their own. Or perhaps even half of that. (Mind you, talking about latest variants, not the initial one). That's due to the heavier payload. And carriers did not increase that much in size lately. I believe the latest gen might actually be a bit shorter, so we might not see an increase in planes's range in the future either. The shorter range means that combat patrols are not going to be that effective compared to the ones during Korea. As the anti-ship missiles evolve, its not going to be long before US might need to rethink their whole carrier strategy. The big point is that, you could send 100 planes, bigger than the carrier airwing, on a suicide mission against the carrier and still have the upper hand as once the carrier is done for, you also sabotaged the planes left on board, the ones in the air (if there are no bases around) and the whole crew.
@CrunchyNorbert4 жыл бұрын
The next generation will be drone carriers
@CrunchyNorbert4 жыл бұрын
@plentyness could be smaller though, and faster
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
A transport military aircraft could be retrofitted into drone carriers. There's already a concept where the C-17 deploying drones to support human fighter pilots.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@plentyness Yea Ford cannot even launch one single fully loaded jet ... Meanwhile the US couldn't even deployed one US carrier last summer. Pretty sure of that. ;-)
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@mickeyg7219 K so show us the concept please.
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage Here's the concept: www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/
@pac1fic0554 жыл бұрын
You know you are listening to a man of culture when he correctly pronounces “Mach”.
@daxtertalon44 жыл бұрын
What happen to "Russian mumbo jumbo over radio" *click* "COMMISSAR BINKOV!"
@jabloko9924 жыл бұрын
I think he got rid of it out of concern that some people might click away in the first 2 seconds, thinking the video is in Russian.
@machiavellianoverture17474 жыл бұрын
Not a good look for PR, especially when google/youtube is actively deplatforming Russian content as a unofficial vigilante extension of our national security.
@Binkov4 жыл бұрын
Next video, just for you, will have "Russian mumbo jumbo over the radio" :)
@machiavellianoverture17474 жыл бұрын
@@Binkov ya soglasen, khoroshiy tovarishch Binkov, ser cheers from AWACS AF!
@checkwikipediasrsly92744 жыл бұрын
@@Binkov I had missed that. Seeing as you're jumping on the Chinese Communist Party's bandwagon of 'Oh no we have to convince America to downgrade it's navy so we can have a chance of competing with them' you should show us you're not biased and make a video about the defenses that are emerging we may use to protect them. Like directed energy weapons. There's a common misconception in the industry right now that the program has been shelved. It's active as of 2020 and it became reactive in 2019. They have the cost of a charge of a shot down to $1 per shot. Lockheed Martin is supposed to be able to field a DEW in the US military by late 2020.
@frenstcht4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for a video that's not hysterical about hypersonic missiles.
@Mr.SpocksBrain3 жыл бұрын
But it should be
@sabercooler50242 жыл бұрын
@@Mr.SpocksBrain SM-6 1B
@looinrims2 жыл бұрын
Binkov doesn’t do buzzwords, hence why he’s the best
@frenstcht2 жыл бұрын
@@looinrims Agreed.
@PhillyPhanVinny4 жыл бұрын
Something I think that is important to note that was not mentioned in the video is the defense/survivability of modern carriers. Because one or even multiple hits does not guarantee you are sinking a carrier. For example it was in the 90's the US tried to sink one of their carriers made in the late 50's I believe and it took 3 days of firing all kinds of different weapons at it to sink the carrier. Another example of this is Iran made a full scale mock US Fleet Carrier in the early 2000's and tried to sink it and failed. They went as far as landing special forces on it and planting bombs which also failed to sink the mock carrier. Iran was forced to tow the carrier they made back to dock. And since then US carriers have gotten stronger armor and damage control to go along with that.
@Aaron-wq3jz4 жыл бұрын
Best part of that Iranian story is that it probably wasn't even as well constructed as a real one
@PhillyPhanVinny4 жыл бұрын
@@Aaron-wq3jz Yeah it wasn't at all. It was basically just a shell built to the same size as a US carrier without the real armor a US carrier has and of course without the damage control a US carrier would have.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@PhillyPhanVinny Sounds like fake news ... Can we have some official sources on what you claim? Some people as you say 'believe' Bigfoot exists. Doesn't mean he's real. Now you also claim they have gotten 'stronger armor'? So what is that armor called or? Wait US carriers are not armored at all? Yea sorry I am sinking it in one single hit. Any Vietcong could do it remember? ;-)
@gladonos33844 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage Americium. It is a heavy element made of 'Murica that makes carriers unsinkable and makes Michel Platteeuws weep tears of sadness.
@PhillyPhanVinny4 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage I mean if you did a simple goole search you would see the stories I am talking about. The ship it took the US navy 3 days to sink was the USS America (after googling it just now I found out it was actually 4 weeks! not 3 days and it was only suck after they decided to scuttle the ship). Link here: nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/2005-us-navy-tried-sink-one-its-old-aircraft-carriers-it-wasnt-easy-41132 And here is the link about Iran not being able to sink the fake carrier they made: nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/expert-iran-cant-sink-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-war-now-80776 that actually happened in 2015, it has been a long time since I read about these stories. As for the carrier having better armor. You don't have to have found a new stronger metal to make better armor like you suggest. For example the USS America that took 4 weeks to sink after shooting everything possible at it was able to stand up to that fire power because it had a triple layered hull. Meaning weapons have to push through alternating layers of steel and empty pockets to reach her internals. And then she also had internal compartmentalization that was far better than that of battleships during WW2. She was so large and there were so many more rooms that must be filled in order to make her sink compared to that of a battleship. And this was a carrier made in the 60's. More modern carrier's apparently have even better defenses that are still classified.
@JeanZGerman4 жыл бұрын
Seriously man... How do you compile so much information?
@looinrims2 жыл бұрын
By being awesome of course
@hrwedsash4 жыл бұрын
What about anti-submarine helicopters and planes? And carrier Battle groups do have their own submarines to defend from enemy submarines. Isn't it?
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
One sub is all it takes. Shoot down the ASW helo's and planes. Sink the sub escorts, the carrier and the rest of the fleet. USN doctrine means a US CSG without submarines. US CBGs only form during exercises or actual war. Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision, USS Dolphin major flooding and fire, USS Oklahoma City collision with tanker, USS Hartford grounding, USS San Francisco collision with undersea terrain, USS Philadelphia collision with MV Yasa Aysen, USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul incident, USS Newport News collision with Japanese tanker Mogamigawa, USS Hartford and USS New Orleans collision, USS Miami arson, USS Montpelier collision with USS San Jacinto, USS Jacksonville collision. Simple math really. USN doesn't have enough subs anymore to do it. US CBGs should have subs escorts but doesn't work if you wreck them faster then you can build them.
@Dronestriketerrorists4 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage you just said..sink the sub shoot down the planes and sink the escorts and sink the carrier..one problem united states have the most andvanced Carrier..and the most advanced fighter planes..and the most advanced anti sub aire craft in the world..most likely they will get there subs sunk..their planes shot down and their escorts destroyed and oh by the way..in order to do all of that..you will need a complete strike pachage something that no other country but the united states has made mobile..soooo...good luck with that
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@Dronestriketerrorists Ehm you mean you think I said something? Not sure what you are saying. Fail to end a sentence, can't form words and don't know what capital letters are ... You make some BS claims but we see no official source that the weak to very weak US military suddenly became 'advanced'. imgur.com/O3pRaGu I was merely stating proven fact attack sequences. Just like educated people will find out our d/e Perishers have a 100% hit ratio against any carrier. And no navy has ever detected one of ours in over 70+ years now. No I did not say anything here. Again just stating fact as per the testimony under oath by US naval analyst Norman Polmar before US Congress. Or you can read some of his books if you like? Sorry all we need is one single small submarine. And yea we are far more advanced then the ye old US navy still using wooden ships, lol!
@boiboiboi14194 жыл бұрын
Elron in your dreams American
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@Elron Yea in your dreams. Our d/e Perishers always beat entire US Carrier Battlegroups at full strenght you mean? Or two if you like ... Remember Ocean Venture? Sure rant your fake news. I just need no technology, 1960s weapons and 90 soldiers to sink a US CBG and a 30 ship support fleet backing it up and sink in 10 mins flat. Take it from a military expert. ;-)
@aceain3654 жыл бұрын
European Union vs China Turkey vs Israel Canada vs Mexico Russia vs Japan Binkov vs Elmo
@tactics10564 жыл бұрын
김예찬 i would pay for the last one thoo
@SergeantKillGore4 жыл бұрын
I think eventually a larger fleet of smaller and more nimble carriers will begin to replace the giants we see currently. The improvement of drone technology will probably help them augment human pilots in air-to-air combat and other operations through in air refueling.
@Aaron-wq3jz4 жыл бұрын
Until they all get hacked or jammed at once
@namyun27434 жыл бұрын
Not without a massive increase to the Navy's budget. Even "smaller, nimbler" carriers will need an escort force to protect them, and those escort fleets can get mighty pricey on their own not to mention the cost of changes to the logistics of going to more smaller nimbler carriers. If you're talking about slightly scaling back future carrier development, that does sound feasible, but historically speaking, the US Navy has been scaling back the number of operational carriers for the past 30 years and increasing their capability rather than scaling back.
@savethedeveloper4 жыл бұрын
smaller carriers will require you to mass them together to get same amount of firepower. They will also sink quicker
@EricTheActor8054 жыл бұрын
@Gaius Wyrden No...thats the opposite of what we need Aircraft carriers are obsolete We need to invest in small, unmanned carriers Or better yet, XQ-58A deployed from Shipping Containers
@TheTrueAdept4 жыл бұрын
@@EricTheActor805 No, the USN has done numerous studies on this, and all of them go 'unless it is for the role of LHAs and similar, bigger is absolutely better'. A 62,000-ton design only had... 2,700 tons of aviation fuel aboard. Nimitz class carriers (a 100,000-ton design) have 11,000 tons of aviation fuel. The Fords have even larger aviation fuel stores and have ten times the ammo storage than the LHA-6 'USS America'.
@JonathanARae4 жыл бұрын
Binkov, thanks for taking the time to put this together for us.
@DuLzzPKC4 жыл бұрын
right after watching the coverts cabal video the future of navy, i see binkov talking about the same subject. interesting to watch different great channels talk about same topics
@captainameriking53824 жыл бұрын
Great video Binkov! Can't wait for the next one
@Daniel-wi9qv4 жыл бұрын
0:04 USS Texas I went on it when i was in cub scouts
@catsupchutney4 жыл бұрын
I'd ask what circumstances you are considering. In an all out war it is certain carriers would be taken out by multiple cruise missiles, but historically they have been used for force projection during peacetime, and they still work for that purpose.
@elsauce48734 жыл бұрын
Binkov: Will the attacker have a fleet that can fire so many missiles to overwhelm the defender? Soviets: Laughs in missile boat
@CommiTsunami4 жыл бұрын
Until the carrier air wing sinks their missile boats...
@tabrezakhtar71924 жыл бұрын
@Adolf Stalin no brother carriers are the easiest to locate and pinpoint. Binkov totally missed the satellites monitoring the oceans
@samiodeh37854 жыл бұрын
The Oscars go to your comment
@GenocideWesterners3 жыл бұрын
@@CommiTsunami Soviets: Laughs in 425 missile boats and 60 cruise missile submarines.
@billhanna21484 жыл бұрын
Thank you for a really informative and thorough coverage of a valid relevant concern. Kudos Commissar Binkov 👍💪😎
@tony30030014 жыл бұрын
Why do I feel like Carrier is going to be phased out just like how Dreadnought ends up after WWII and being replaced by some form of mega-missile array ship.
@EricTheActor8054 жыл бұрын
There is no need for an arsenal ship either Unmanned is the future
@EricTheActor8054 жыл бұрын
@Tattle Boad There is an need for 1) Cyber Warfare 2)Air Defense/Air Superiority 3)Counter Insurgency/Asymmetrical Warfare/Gurilla Warfare 4)Littoral Defense/Control 5)First Strike 6)Anti-Ship/Submarines 7)Drones 8)Unmanned Naval Vehicles
@EricTheActor8054 жыл бұрын
@Tattle Boad Absolutely critical
@tieck44084 жыл бұрын
A carrier is a mega-missile array ship with unmatched range and economics.
@tieck44084 жыл бұрын
@@EricTheActor805 yes, America, in current year we should make a priority of protecting our shores and sky, a solid green water navy. . . for fear of Canada
@teddy.d1744 жыл бұрын
Offensive and defensive military capabilities are synonymous with boxing, punch.....counter-punch. Awesome content and channel Mr. Binkov! 🤘🏻
@ThePNWRiderWA4 жыл бұрын
One more the problems faced is the we are at 4th and even 5th generation warfare. The preparation of the battlefield will be months and may well include cyber , infrastructure ( including space based) , financial and even biological attacks well before the classic battle even takes place. It’s hard to wage a war of the crews of ship as are all ill, there is massive civil unrest in the homeland due to widespread power outages. Etc.
@ligmaboo4 жыл бұрын
yup
@CommiTsunami4 жыл бұрын
Yes, but it won't be one sided. All sides would be conducting operations simultaneously. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.
@jc.11913 жыл бұрын
Yes, infrastructure attacks can be a thing. But biological warfare might escalate to large-scale nuclear exchange. Not wise at all. In the US, we can live off the land and have guns for hunting and much freshwater. We will just be annoyed. Not every country can do that.
@beefsuprem02414 жыл бұрын
The main thing that protects a super carrier is who owns it. You hit one and you can expect an ass whooping soon after.
@bradz94134 жыл бұрын
Beefsuprem0 very good point lol
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
You got a point, the US historically never take someone sinking its ships lightly. The US have went to war over a much lighter ship, if the conspiracy is right, the US have blew its own ship to start a war several times.
@jabril5200014 жыл бұрын
KZbin trump nuts feel that the US military is utterly invincible. USA service members are Supermen with super human strength . They cannot die or suffer injury. Lol 😂. USa weapons are also invincible. They are not subject to failures or human error . AMERICA has alien powered lazers all over space to shoot down ALL incoming nuclear weapons from our enemies. They Have a god in the white house and And God himself loves America and only America. These people are utterly delusional in need of a doctor's care lol 😂
@jabril5200014 жыл бұрын
@Joakim von Anka exactly. Thank God our military commanders are more reasonable and level headed than these KZbin psychopathic trump Cultist in the comment section. No human is walking this Earth is invincible. No Military made up of human being is invincible. Our commanders know this and most do not underestimate the strength and weaknesses of our enemies
@nagendraraman64104 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carriers are for power projection.
@tomlockhart42254 жыл бұрын
Thanks for showing the Battleship Texas, BB35, at the beginning of the video, the last of the Dreadnaughts.
@v1nceadmiral5343 жыл бұрын
I like how when he did self promotion segment, he included when it would end
@guopeneferozz4 жыл бұрын
I use Ublock origin. I do not see adds on the internet. Pure Binkov :)
@SiliconBong4 жыл бұрын
AdBlockPlus is my weapon of choice. Have a nice day.
@guopeneferozz4 жыл бұрын
@@SiliconBong Use both. Why not?
@DOSFS4 жыл бұрын
Big Carrier, maybe But Carrier itself have their unreplacable role so long as aircraft is still rule the battlefield.
@CallsignYukiMizuki4 жыл бұрын
Underrated comment. People will always say "carriers are useless" or "carriers are gonna be replaced by destroyers and subs", like the air domain has 0 factor in naval combat. Sheesh
@tentimesful4 жыл бұрын
@@CallsignYukiMizuki America carriers are for terorrists who can't fight back, it will probably wiped if they attack Russia/China alliance...
@CallsignYukiMizuki4 жыл бұрын
@@tentimesful Yes, and the new Chinese carriers and ASMs are for people protesting free speech who can't fight back, it will probably be wiped out if they attack the USN and their allies...
@machiavellianoverture17474 жыл бұрын
Carriers will continuously to adapt to emergent threats as long as the platform maintains the capability to be frequently upgraded and ahead of the curve with leading edge suites of countermeasures and the technical expertise required to master new demands placed on them by the adversary and new technological changes. Currently the Ford class is the latest in that design philosophy, and it doesnt look like there is much that will be price$/human cost efficient enough to neutralize even just one.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@CallsignYukiMizuki Nah China would sink the USN in under 48 hours. It's helpless and defenseless against hypersonic weapons. Take it from a military expert remember?
@BillProctorUSA4 жыл бұрын
I would say hypersonic missiles, energy-based weapons, and stealth torpedoes would be the things I'd worry about the most. Then again... I'm sure that the Navy worries about those things, too - and have started to think of ways to mitigate those threats.
@samthegamer4910 Жыл бұрын
yeah I mean posiden is a big threat but then anti-sub planes are also there so subs are not that safe anymore might be?
@krm3982 жыл бұрын
in a really modern war drop rods from obit can penetrate a ships hull and go clear through. lasers can target anything on the deck and destroy it or make it explode. Missiles can track a drone from 20 miles away. a carrier from 100 or more, and there's no escape from any of these but hoping to out maneuver something that's a heck of a lot faster than you will ever be. and that doesn't even count small tactical nukes.
@machiavellianoverture17474 жыл бұрын
Carriers will continuously to adapt to emergent threats as long as the platform maintains the capability to be frequently upgraded and ahead of the curve with leading edge suites of countermeasures and the technical expertise required to master new demands placed on them by the adversary and new technological changes. Currently the Ford class is the latest in that design philosophy, and it doesn't look like there is much that will be price$/human cost efficient enough to neutralize even just one.
@АлександрДаминин Жыл бұрын
you will be surprised, but effective and stealth submarines will be pretty enough - if not to eliminate aircraft carries, then to just make them useless by forcing US or any other country surround this carriers by more and more ships to avoid submarine attack - in that case it can lead to the lack of needed ships to defend your seas and coast line.
@MultiMagnis2 жыл бұрын
it is real simple how to deal with missile threats. go drone for def. many mini drones with scatter shot volley to damage or disable a missile. technically i dont need to destroy a missile. just damage it where it can not fly str8 or see my target. computers can lock on to targets faster and if you set the radar to detect change in atmosphere pressure well you find a target coming at you with ease because even if a target is coming at mach 9. it still has to break wind and create turbulence. many mini drones being in it way does not mean the missile will bypass the drones but either collide or the scatter volley shots from the drone will make the missile(s) go boom boom or disabled to not fly right.
@thescarlethunter21604 жыл бұрын
6:54 Who knows the information controls the world - Senku Ishigami probably
@xbaumann4 жыл бұрын
I think we’ll shift from one large super carrier to a fleet of smaller strike carriers in terms of tactics.
@robertfrost16834 жыл бұрын
Laser weapons will make attack missiles obsolete.
@martonlerant56724 жыл бұрын
@@robertfrost1683 How? Its far from trivial to fry missiles that are coated with paint that has 99% reflectivity. Sure it may be an option to try to kill the sensors on said missile, however the attacker can simply opt to use guided missiles, that won't have front facing sensors to be fried directed using information gained from less observable sensors like submarines.
@ThatCarGuy4 жыл бұрын
Not much as there is a literal missile fortress surrounding it. Destroyers carry ESSMs which can be quad packed. So say 20 cells have ESSMs, thats 80 missiles, say it has 30, that's 120 per ship with 5+ destroyers and 1-2 cruisers in a fleet during wartime, and Submarines depending on armament. thats around 1000 missiles alone defending the carrier... You can launch off 10 missiles per 1 enemy missile. Now add in all the offensive weaponry its strike group is firing off and launching aircraft will take out SAM systems firing off missiles giving their position away. Also remember the US took a month to destroy it's own carrier at point blank ranges and had to end up scuttling it. "On 25 February 2005, a ceremony to salute America and her crew was held at the ship's pier in Philadelphia, attended by former crew members and various dignitaries. She departed the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility on 19 April 2005 to conduct the aforementioned tests. The experiments lasted approximately four weeks. The Navy tested America with underwater explosives, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel. These explosions were designed to simulate underwater attacks. After the completion of the tests, America was sunk in a controlled scuttling on 14 May 2005 at approximately 11:30, although the sinking was not publicized until six days later. At the time, no warship of that size had ever been sunk, and effects were closely monitored; theoretically the tests would reveal data about how supercarriers respond to battle damage"
@spiritvdc51094 жыл бұрын
Yea people tend to forget you wouldn't just be attacking an aircraft carrier, you'd be attacking an aircraft carrier
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@spiritvdc5109 The crew of the Gotland didn't forget and attacked succesfully. Dutch Walrus class? Same. German type 212 and 214? Same? French Saphir? Again the same. Everytime they hit that US carrier you claim the sub crews forgot something?
@ThatCarGuy3 жыл бұрын
@Drew Peacock Each ship has a minimum of 10. So almost 700 SM-3 in the ocean floating waiting to m\be used. Ballistic missiles also wont be used on ships to do their lack of maneuverability. Missiles moving at hypersonic speeds aren't maneuverable. This is why ballistic missiles have such large CEPs. Even Russias own patent for hypersonic missiles admits they can't maneuver. Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered. Lets do some math then I'll show you my sources. Lets using the Zircon missile for example as it's a slower moving ballistic missile. It's top speed is mach 9 converting to KM/S that's about 3km/s. Now say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off target 15km and keep in mind if somehow the ballistic/hypersonic missile still has it's engine in the terminal phase and could power itself, it would move more then a single degree sending it way off course as it's moving to fast, this is why every nation still uses sub-sonic missile, they can maneuver. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods-most of the flight is unpowered" "Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet. The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that: an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine; characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible; there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target."
@ThatCarGuy3 жыл бұрын
@Drew Peacock "You're not going on about ESSMs any more I notice. Good because they're totally irrelevant to NEW threats that carriers will face." Please troll someone else or I will just block you. ESSMs are meant for anti-ship cruise missiles. They work as intended. "Source re a minimum of 10?" apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1046487.pdf "And SM-3 needs to be 100% effective 100% of the time, which no missile is." No they do not as you send multiple interceptors. You are correct on one thing though no missile is 100 percent effective. "What? They have to be SOMEWHAT manoeuvrable because ships at sea aren't static targets. If they weren't manoeuvrable they couldn't hit their targets." The only time BMs can maneuver is in their boost phase and part of their midcourse phase before reaching it's highest trajectory then detaches from it's booster, sends out it's warhead/mirvs all of which are unpowered and meant to hit a stationary non moving target. "Some ballistic missiles have large CEPs, but ballistic ANTI-SHIP missiles use mid-course guidance correction from satellites. The missiles use their on-board guidance in their terminal phase." There is no such thing as an anti-ship ballistic missile as proven by math, patent, etc. They move to fast as proven with math. "What? What patent? What are you talking about?" I literally posted the patent... Please troll someone else im about ready to block you. Actually read this part of my response this time or next time I will just block you. "Lets using the Zircon missile for example as it's a slower moving ballistic missile. It's top speed is mach 9 converting to KM/S that's about 3km/s. Now say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off target 15km and keep in mind if somehow the ballistic/hypersonic missile still has it's engine in the terminal phase and could power itself, it would move more then a single degree sending it way off course as it's moving to fast, this is why every nation still uses sub-sonic missile, they can maneuver. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods-most of the flight is unpowered" "Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet. The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that: an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine; characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible; there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target." "Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered." What are you referring to? HGVs? I swear it's like im speaking another language to you. I don't know how to make it any more simple then requoting myself. "Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered." Wiki is a terrible source to use, as anyone can type whatever they want. Hence why I use military sources, patents, and math. But even though you seem to like wiki so much they even state ballistic missiles do no move. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods-most of the flight is unpowered."
@BenMan88812 жыл бұрын
Only way for the aircraft carrier to become obsolete/unnecessary: Creation of a carrier in space.
@jaybadayatherockmerchant98324 жыл бұрын
Carrier: nobody can defeat me I'm Invinsible! Coronavirus: Hold my crown
@I-tickle-toes4 жыл бұрын
Iran supreme leader on CPP virus All male rallies cancelled ladies.
@ycplum70624 жыл бұрын
One minor point. Nuclear subs can be fast enough to catch a carrier, but they can not do so quietly. If course, with proper intel comms, they may be able to get ahead of a carrier group and then wait.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
Meh just launch the 800 km/h torpedo. Love to see a carrier outrun that, lol!
@ycplum70624 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage They have a very short range and they are still working on the guidance system. It is kind of tough to use even active sonar when you are the loudest thing in the ocean. lol I suspect the Shkval was one of the reasons everyone started developing anti-torp torpedoes.
@renegalvan49574 жыл бұрын
The faster the missile the less manoeuvrable it’s really hard to hit a fast moving carrier.
@esotericegoism75364 жыл бұрын
We nitro boosting air craft Carriers?
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@esotericegoism7536 Never know what happens in war. Just take out an airwings jetengines and weld them to the aft deck. Why not? ;-)
@shgjjj28794 жыл бұрын
One of the best videos from @binkov in 2020 a really good summary, would love a video on where China's navy may be at in 2030 under current plans
@HenryElfin4 жыл бұрын
The deployment of long service duration recon drones will make the carriers harder to hide too
@Eldenfirefly3 жыл бұрын
What about drones? Small, cheap to manufacture, impossible to detect and each drone can carry a big enough bomb to do significant damage. A few cargo ships can hide hundreds of drones that suddenly launch towards an aircraft carrier fleet. You can't shoot down a few hundred drones. While limited in range, launching one hundred under water drones will also overwelm any anti sub capabilities an aircraft carrier fleet would have. Its far cheaper to make and manufacture hundreds of even thousands of drones compared to the cost of 1 aircraft carrier...
@tieck44084 жыл бұрын
It's not hard for the US to outrange the emeny with airborne refueling, then gradually approach. When that's your plan, there's no disadvantage to boiling the ocean with active sonar, which will reveal most submarines. The real threat is stealth carrier intercept aircraft, especially if they're cheap.
@lolman345_84 жыл бұрын
Most people also seem to forget that sonar is not the only way to find a submarine today. Magnetic anomaly detectors don't care how quiet your submarine is, and there is little you can do to mitigate their effectiveness bar making your submarine out of something not metal or pushing distance from the aircraft following you.
@arthas6404 жыл бұрын
Stealth technology is really expensive though since its becoming more and more sophisticated to combat improved radar. The tiniest flaw makes them vulnerable so the costs are only increasing. Basic levels of stealth are getting cheaper but you have to make them ore sophisticated if you want to compete against equally technologically advanced enemies.
@chavdarnaidenov26614 жыл бұрын
A carrier group is simply a floating military base that is kind enough to approach, so you don't have to travel a lot towards it. One flaw is that it could change direction and pass unnoticed by the welcoming party. That is why a well-mannered nation should patrol along it's coastline with numerous anough fast moving rocket boats that can quickly converge around the guest and greet her with a volley that darkens the sky. That should send the outsized canoo to Neptune.
@MissesWitch4 жыл бұрын
Next type of Ship: Missile Carrier
@gma7294 жыл бұрын
GREAT VID. SUPER INFORMATIVE. THANK YOU
@dalemartell86394 жыл бұрын
Read “ Red Storm Rising”.
@HalfLifeExpert14 жыл бұрын
The thing is, only a couple countries can afford the tech and firepower needed to seriously threaten a USN Supercarrier, and that are potential opponents of the US: Russia and China. In the case of Russia, the serious threat is predominantly submarines, thus passive ASW (from a carrier's escorts) and active ASW (from ones own SSNs and MPAs) are needed. In the case of China, arguably the biggest threat, it will come down to smart use and deployment of carriers. In the event of hostilities or threat of hostilities, I wouldn't send any carrier west of the first Island chain (Japan, Ryukus, Taiwan, Phillipines). Supercarriers will still be very useful for power projection for a long time, especially when facing opponents that are not China or Russia.
@piotrd.48504 жыл бұрын
Well, supercarriers will be eaten up by bad management and exploding cost and most vaulnerable part of carrier is.... escort and logistics. If country is unable to maintain sizeable force to escort carriers _and_ do other things, then carrier is no go.
@ottomeyer69284 жыл бұрын
destroy the escorts,launch the planes and crqp the carrier.planes have nowhere to land and are also toast.
@EricTheActor8054 жыл бұрын
@@ottomeyer6928 What?
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@StrategicFooyoo That would violate the US Constitution. And after that they will scrap the 2nd amendment? Keep dreaming. ;-)
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@StrategicFooyoo Sorry I never trust a anti American troll hiding behind a fake name spreading propaganda and who edits his words like the Nazi's burned books. I am trusting the US Constitution not giving the US goverment any choice. You failed to explain how it will change the US Constitution. So every American who pledged knows the US Constitution. Now tell everyone here which exact part of the US Constitution? Can't answer that can you?
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@StrategicFooyoo Sorry fake name troll. Proven fact does not think anything. 10 U.S. Code § 5062 says no to your anti US Constitution propaganda BS. The fact that you do not know what is in the actual US Constitution only makes your lies against the US more miserable, lol! Think you can change a fact? No one has ever done it. No one ever will. ;-)
@maximthemagnificent2 жыл бұрын
The smaller size of drone aircraft and the potential to vertically launch them makes me wonder if a submarine aircraft carrier might be possible some day. If a nuclear sub, you could extract hydrogen from the water for fuel, perhaps. The exact details of retrieval would be an interesting problem.
@nobleman93934 жыл бұрын
Pre-War America(Fallout) vs Nazi Germany(Wolfenstein: The New Order)
@namesurname18694 жыл бұрын
No
@johannadams72664 жыл бұрын
No
@katarinavidakovic13734 жыл бұрын
No
@denzelsmashsymptom42644 жыл бұрын
Yes
@DOSFS4 жыл бұрын
Both size lack most informations especially numbers and tactics to make a real comparison.
@willwozniak28263 жыл бұрын
Things have changed in a year. its pretty damn amazing!
@tboltaq24 жыл бұрын
People have been arguing the end of carriers since the end of WW2 with the beginning of the independent air force and the advent of intercontinental nuclear bombers like the B-29, B-36, B-47 and then then B-52. All the experts were wrong. Carriers might not be the perfect weapon in all theaters of war but everyone keeps thinking of them as solitary ships operating in a high threat environment. That isn't the case. China claims the ability to kill carriers but I don't buy it. They don't have the ability to accurately target them and then there are the other ships who escort them that have the ability to shoot down even object that are suborbital.... Subs have always been the real serious threat but a couple Los Angeles or Virginia class fast attack boats would make that threat far less than it could be.... I wouldn't sing the swan song of the carrier navy quite yet.
@icecold95114 жыл бұрын
China wouldn't be investing in naval aviation if they thought carriers were done.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
The US is helpless and defenseless against hypersonic weapons. Take it from a military expert. Free of charge since you are not buying, lol!
@gladonos33844 жыл бұрын
NEVER have the mentality that a ship is unsinkable that is a recipe for disaster. China can very well sink one. The issue is that it will be a very large task and they run the risk of either over doing it(Likely) or worse under doing it(Disastrous.) @Shawn Walker So true. "China is best! China's missiles destroy stupid american carriers! Carriers obsolete. Oh btw, were building 6 and we want one that is even bigger kthxby."
@icecold95114 жыл бұрын
@@gladonos3384 While it is true never think unsinkable, the rest of your statement is erroneous. First, how would you know the effectiveness of Chinese missiles? You deep in the Chinese military? Second, just as no ship is unsinkable, no missile is uninterceptable. The US is already playing with lasers. If China and Russian missiles were so perfect, they move now instead of waiting until our technology erases that advantage. Third, the US has long preferred the advantages of slower sea skimming missiles. Namely that without airborne radar platforms it is impossible for ship radar to detect them over the horizon. 15 or so miles, depending on the radar mast. And the US is developing its own hypersonic missiles. Given that China 'knows' hypersonic missiles are carrier killers, they then know their own ships are doomed too. Fourth, given your use of English you're either a well trained propagandist, or an American troll.
@ottomeyer69284 жыл бұрын
surprise,yes they can and also have a very vicious antitank rocket
@dreamingflurry27293 жыл бұрын
Tactical nuke - either in the form of a torpedo (the Russians have long range strategic torpedos!) or a long range (super sonic!) anti-ship cruise missile (you don't even have to score a direct hit with those weapons! A near miss is enough! Or a saturation bombardment with missiles (even the Aegis-Combat-System can only handle so much!)
@sababugs11253 жыл бұрын
If you use a nuke that means you're getting nuked too
@Marcus510904 жыл бұрын
Directed energy weapons. The new American aircraft carriers reactors are much more powerful than needed..... it’s because electro plasma armour is expected to be introduced within the next 15 years, and the extra power is needed to power it.... it lowers the impact and kinetic energy of a projectile by about 50-70% It’s unknown how effective this armour technology will be against energy weapons.
@Jalil_Salomon4 жыл бұрын
It sounds like we are talking about star wars
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@Jalil_Salomon Yes we could ask for some kinda proof or evidence but we will get none of it! Meanwhile my 7yo called Avengers assemble and defeated Captain Kirk with the most advanced ship the US has ... At least that's real. ;-)
@Marcus510904 жыл бұрын
Michel Platteeuw Lol just google it
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@Marcus51090 Haha see you are a Google troll spouting your propaganda from a criminal source, lol! curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf Sorry no criminal fake news allowed. We are doing rules here. Burden of Proof in the original US Constitution. Your words, your claim become your burden to provide evidence. So ... fake news it is then. Thanks. ;-)
@timkoehoorn62624 жыл бұрын
The sub can’t receive updates while submerged, so it has to surface or get close to in order to receive the coordinates of the carriers. Which leaves room for options with the carrier
@doctorbritain96324 жыл бұрын
Depends on whom you're fighting.
@arthas6404 жыл бұрын
The US's carriers have been essentially invulnerable since the later days of WW2, right now they're basically forward operating bases that can sail across the world. Most of the US's enemies since then cant threaten their carrier groups so even if the tech is possible it doesnt matter if your enemy cant developer it, use it, or buy it.
@koshersalaami4 жыл бұрын
This is really good. There are a couple of new variables that will be in place well before ten years: 1. Sea-based laser weapons. These aren’t science fiction any more. The US has already begun deploying these. The defensive capabilities are likely to be very good and improving. They’re of course very fast, they can handle multiple simultaneous targets, and they’re ridiculously inexpensive to operate. I don’t know how close the US is to being able to take out a satellite with one but over a ten year period I certainly wouldn’t be surprised. I also don’t know how useful they would be against hypersonic missiles but they’re pretty much guaranteed to be faster than anything kinetic; after all, if they fix on a target, they are functionally hitting it instantly, even over great range. I don’t know the effective destructive range of current laser weapons. I suspect not long enough to take out a hypersonic missile, but I’m not sure. 2. Much smaller carriers to augment super carriers. The US has amphibious ships designed to carry helicopters. It turns out many of them can accommodate F35B’s, short takeoff vertical landing. Now a force can be spread out, and not just any force, a stealth force. There’s a question as to whether any nation other than the US has effectively deployed stealth combat aircraft. Russia is having trouble and is scheduled to deploy 76 SU57’s by 2028. That’s way less than half the number of F22’s the US has, let alone F35’s and certainly let alone F35’s by 2028. China’s stealth fighters have been a failure, with India reporting they can spot them as if they weren’t stealth at all. And all of these are land based. China has stopped building carriers temporarily but not because they don’t think they’re viable. They have two issues: They can’t build small enough and powerful enough nuclear reactors to power them and they don’t have a fighter suitable for carriers. One ostensibly is, I think the J15, but this aircraft is woefully underpowered (the Chinese are not good at jet engines) to the point where it has really limited range if fully armed. To give you an idea of how bad they are, a Chinese military publication has referred to the J15 as a “flopping fish.” And this is not a stealth aircraft, which is a major problem. F35’s in combat exercises against F15’s and F16’s are recording 20/1 kill ratios and that’s against Gen. 4 aircraft a lot better than J15’s. To my knowledge, neither Russia nor China has a carrier-based stealth aircraft under development. Given how long it takes to design and deploy a fighter, neither country is going to be able to mount a credible sea-based answer to the US within a decade.
@Emperor_Atlantis4 жыл бұрын
F22 vs F35 vid....wow that would be awesome
@johannadams72664 жыл бұрын
That would be like a faceoff between a 9mm Glock and a precision sniper rifle. Two completely different things for two completely different purposes. One is a dogfighter, one is a multi-purpose precision support jet.
@Emperor_Atlantis4 жыл бұрын
@@johannadams7266 Still it was in the patreonpoll screenshot in the beginning of this video. Thats why I brought it up. And personally I always loved the Raptor a lot so I'm very intrested in the info.
@peterl.1044 жыл бұрын
No contest if you’re looking at air superiority, but you can’t deploy F-22s as easily since they aren’t designed for carriers.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@peterl.104 You are correct ofcourse. Why during WWII some dude called Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle was kicked out of service with a dishonory discharge. He was such a loon that he actually tried to convince the US Navy it was possible to launch entire bombers off the deck of a US carrier. Such a shame they never tried it. Had he been succesfull the guy could have made General in the US military! Guess we will never know what could have happened.
@stupidburp4 жыл бұрын
I see a comeback of cruisers. Light and heavy cruisers with a main gun or two and many missiles can provide significant firepower with less vulnerability and less cost to carriers. Another advantage of cruisers is the ability to accommodate very large high power radar antennas, which helps them detect and engage threats such as ballistic missiles at greater range and with more precision. Carriers will still have a presence but may decline in target numbers, with more cruisers and destroyers replacing them. Cruisers can also offer sufficient internal space for fleet command and control.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
Yea every frigate of ours can do all that easily, lol!
@brabham744 жыл бұрын
American Supercarriers will be the ruler, until they are not. Even if a carrier is vulnerable, they will always be the most feared weapon, from America. If and when the carrier become obsolete, then America's military will adapt.
@corajallen94714 жыл бұрын
Even the super carrier will go through a period of being phased out like battleships; which were made obsolete by the carriers but were still used for almost 50 years afterwords.
@rodbottomley45144 жыл бұрын
Oh thanks that is what I have always wanted to know. Share.
@svitvalencic25074 жыл бұрын
Binkov, please do a future battle scenario of Super Gorshkov vs. Arleigh Burke destroyers. They'll be roughly comparable due to similar number of launch tubes, it could even be the same - 96 for Burke and 48+48=96 for Project 22350M haha
@laetrille4 жыл бұрын
Burke wins imo
@becauseiwasinverted52224 жыл бұрын
Those frigates don't even exist yet
@svitvalencic25074 жыл бұрын
@@laetrille if Gorshkovs will be armed with 48 Zircons, we should assume new antiship missile for Burkes if they're to win
@svitvalencic25074 жыл бұрын
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 yes, basic charasteristics were made public in December.
@becauseiwasinverted52224 жыл бұрын
@@svitvalencic2507 a paper drawing and specs can differ wildly from the end result
@TTuoTT3 жыл бұрын
You forgot to talk about satellite vs satellite warfare
@theholyasdf35934 жыл бұрын
Why don't they just paint camo on a carrier? Would be harder for visual satelites to spot carriers
@theholyasdf35933 жыл бұрын
Might be expensive, come to think of it. Have to paint the whole fleet. And all the planes too
@sababugs11253 жыл бұрын
Because it's way too large
@theholyasdf35933 жыл бұрын
@Drew Peacock You sure satelites have radar? Thought square cube law would make such radars on satelites with limited power and tonnage effectively useless
@theholyasdf35933 жыл бұрын
@Drew Peacock Hmm, worrisome I feel that is. But at least now I know
@theholyasdf35933 жыл бұрын
@Drew Peacock It would be enormously disappointing that such ensuing space debris becomes a massive problem for future space projects. I wonder if there's some kind of anti-satelite missile that creates an EMP that permanently damages all the circuitry of a satelite, but leaving it physically intact
@lightspeedvictory4 жыл бұрын
In terms of air and missile defense, there is a reason the U.S. is developing railguns and hyper velocity projectiles as they can engage the whole gambit of aerial threats, from conventional aircraft and missiles to hypersonic and ballistic missiles
@robertfrost16834 жыл бұрын
and laser weapons.
@lightspeedvictory4 жыл бұрын
Robert Frost while I agree with u, I’m more hesitant in terms of lasers countering hypersonic and ballistic weapons. Said weapons typically operate in high temperature regimes, and a laser’s primary means of target destruction is melting the target, rendering a laser weapon possibly useless in this regard.
@justinokraski37964 жыл бұрын
I think the future will be several smaller carriers that launch drones instead of conventional aircraft, with the drone operators dispersed throughout the fleet.
@richardalexander57584 жыл бұрын
Small fast drone carriers, or drone carrier subs could replace these expensive vulnerable fleet ships.
@परशुरामएकशिवभक्त4 жыл бұрын
New threat that super carriers face today is *"Coronavirus"*
@mursalwarsame58394 жыл бұрын
😂😂corona Baby :)
@getstuffed23914 жыл бұрын
I know it’s just a joke but only if someone brings it onboard
@getstuffed23914 жыл бұрын
StrategicFooyoo all they would do is put the carriers in ports and lock them down tight they legally can’t sell them according to their lore and everyone is having their economy hit by this so don’t start
@tyazze63904 жыл бұрын
@@getstuffed2391 they won't sell them, they'll scrap them. well, that would be if money ever ran out...
@getstuffed23914 жыл бұрын
tyazze I never said they would sell them and it would be more money taking them apart then what they would get out of it
@polygamous14 жыл бұрын
where does the new Poseidon autonomous torpedoes come into effect against carrier groups? or the Avanguard hypersonic missiles? just wondering
@BorntoYeet4 жыл бұрын
Both are strategic weapons for land targets
@polygamous12 жыл бұрын
@@BorntoYeet thanks
@benensddbekfjj53754 жыл бұрын
Have you ever thought about writing a book in the Red storm rising style
@Defender784 жыл бұрын
one big issue if a carrier is hit, or any support craft, will be that the nearby destroyers/cruisers will have pull along side it, come to a halt, and transfer & rescue survivors, while still defending against incoming missiles. 12:10 what if satellites eventually gain ability to carry warheads??
@richardpatton25024 жыл бұрын
I believe you’re wrong about 2 things. 1st: the US did not increase its aircraft range, they have no long range fighter since the f-14 was retired. The missile gap is wide open. 2nd: you don’t need to track or even know the exact location of the AC. You only need to know the general location. Fire the missiles and they search and lock to any ship in the area. Like the Argentinians did during the Falklands
@possiblyadickhead66534 жыл бұрын
Those ballistic asm will have a way harder time searching tho. They cant use ir or visual methods because of the heat and maybe not even radar because of ionisation of the air because of the heat. Also radars will have hard time picking things up since they are locking down at nearly 90 degrees
@lesliegrayson17224 жыл бұрын
The size of the MODERN US Fleet is almost 3 times that of the Chinna Fleet, let alone Chinna can only really use one third of its Fleet at any one time. Chinna is making a few carriers and a heap of destroyers. The US is countering this threat with 10 more than what Chinna is making. Plus the US is making more carriers and more Subs... coz they can. Once a carrier is built it is a good investment as it lasts a long time, its "flying chicken" target... its there to give you something to look at and attempt to shoot.
@BrunoViniciusCampestrini4 жыл бұрын
As a missile goes faster, it have shorter search times, wich means that the location of the target must be way more accurate.
@leexingha4 жыл бұрын
@@lesliegrayson1722 "Chinna is making a few carriers and a heap of destroyers. The US is countering this threat with 10 more than what Chinna is making. Plus the US is making more carriers and more Subs... coz they can." - false. China is economically mightier than the US. Though it will take at least 30 yrs for China to chase US.
@lesliegrayson17224 жыл бұрын
@@leexingha economically mightier LOL if that were so they wouldnt be resorting to biological weapons and would have a GDP more than 21trillion rather than 11trillion with 1.2billion of its people earning less than a median wage per month of $200. On top of all that Chinna had a world debt of over US$34trillion.... its a gonna.. and now its losing control of the corona virus.. Chinna cant afford to close up and keep everyone inside their houses for 6months like Australia or USA or UK or most of Europe and Canada and Japan and S. Korea.... Economically mightier that is Hilarious ROFLOL..
@ViceCoin3 жыл бұрын
What about electromagnetic railnlsunchers, firing hypersonic glide vehicles, and track carriers with drones?
@MartinCHorowitz4 жыл бұрын
Need an update on Biological warfare....
@uncreativename99364 жыл бұрын
It's super effective!
@driftwood7574 жыл бұрын
The question is not if it is effective, but if it's worth the counter-attack. Nothing stops us from releasing a hyper bug either. It's really just mutually assured destruction. Also, it is really bad PR to use bio-warfare. Doing so endangers other passive nations. It's a really sure-fire way to lose allies and international support. War is political as well, remember that.
@arthas6404 жыл бұрын
@@driftwood757 Releasing a Bio Weapon would guarantee the entire world turn against you pretty damn quick. The last nation to try use it on any serious scale was Imperial Japan and things didnt turn ut in their favor. Even if the US, with its globally dominant military, wouldnt be able to win a war and deal with the international backlash. Most countries only aid their nominal alleis enought to make them happy but launching bio weapons would turn them from casual allies to active opponants pretty quick.
@rogerman654 жыл бұрын
A third or a fourth of all the aircrafts onboard any carrier will be under maintenance at any given time. As one can count on at least one Stingray always being on maintenance aboard the Carrier, one must make place for one extra Stingray on the Carrier. If you want to optimize, you have to make room for the existing E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft and as you mentioned the radar plane E2-C Hawkeye battle management and control aircraft. These must still be carried onboard the Carrier. That is why the US pair up two carriers per mission nowadays.
@rakaipikatan89224 жыл бұрын
A sterling engine submarines
@masterofpuppets72954 жыл бұрын
You seem to forget , in wartime the battlespace around a carrier would be the most monitored place on earth. The carrier would have sub escorts along with cruisers/destroyers, it would likely have its own dedicated sats along with p-8s, awacs, mh60s and f35s all monitoring the imediate and long distance area. More than likely, missiles being launched would be detected not long after launch and even if a few get through the outer screen they would still have to make it through the carriers own defences which include ciws, decoys and ecm. And it would likely take a number of big hits to put it out of action for good
@LordInquisitor7014 жыл бұрын
Personally I think you might see the US Start to use different classes of ships such as cruisers as well as a larger ships and capable of carrying more missiles and carriers Will begin to shrink you might see like 60 or 70,000 ton carriers they’re cheaper than made in various classes of US ships that are fordable But quite advance able to use variety of different missiles such a sub sonic supersonic maybe even hyper sonic Some larger ships we have a gun batteries capable of striking targets 60 miles or 80 miles away design for naval Gun support for troop landing each class of ship will be designed to substitute In case one of the previous classes such as the carriers were out of commission a small group of cruisers equipped with 100 or 200 missiles compensate if not then Much bigger destroyers Capable of carrying more missiles
@peterl.1044 жыл бұрын
JK Wright Ships serving as mini-carriers seem to be an upcoming thing. With STOL and VTOL and drones, we may not need as many full fledge carriers 1-2 decades from now.
@ivangamer80223 жыл бұрын
I love how all this technology, all this money and anger going through all those decades and no one have shoot a single single bullet
@t_diddy5384 жыл бұрын
The thing about this video is that you talked about the advancement in the ways to sink the ship but no advancement in the ship
@mickeyg72194 жыл бұрын
Well, the ship? There's no point of putting armor on it. There are many approach to protect the ship. Keep it far away, increase the range of the plane, carrier-based aerial tankers, better interceptor missiles, better radars etc. Maybe make the carrier faster to outrun nuclear subs. These have its own problems, but it's just another cat-and-mouse game, engineers will found some way to make it practical.
@yoppindia4 жыл бұрын
it takes 20 years to build a new super carrier, so they will always be 15 to 20 years behind missiles.
@CallsignYukiMizuki4 жыл бұрын
@@yoppindia So you're saying that individual components, aircraft, weapons and other equipment on Aircraft Carriers cant be upgraded? Like they absolutely cant be refitted at all, that it requires an entire new class of ship to make these improvements? Like say, if the Advanced Super Hornet were to be realized mass produced, they absolutely cannot operate in existing Nimitz and Ford Carriers?
@yoppindia4 жыл бұрын
@@CallsignYukiMizuki you cant change basic design, retro fit is retro fit, you can only do so much. Missiles can be built faster since they are simpler, electronics can be built in couple of months, at the most a year. A carrier takes 20 years since lot of planning required and there are too many small details. Infact testing takes 3 years to finish!
@Torus21124 жыл бұрын
@Joakim von Anka So the only question that remains is how much the architecture limits upgrades, and the answer for carriers is not much. A battleship relies on armour and guns so its architecture is central, a carrier can be greatly upgraded just by putting in new systems and loading it with new fighters.
@Enesggoker4 жыл бұрын
*every country with aircraft carriers want to know your location*
@zachgamr994 жыл бұрын
6:10 Star Destroyer ho!
@dantheman30224 жыл бұрын
people dont relise a carrier can only launch a small number of planes anyway. Theres a lot of maintenance that these planes need just so you can launch them, which means a good number of them are non operational at any given time. They are good for invading small countries or strategic targets but anything else is useless.
@TheKeithvidz4 жыл бұрын
Even now i feel the threat is bigger than this video posits - a french sub for instance sunk them in exercise.
@shanerooney72884 жыл бұрын
Another commenter mentioned the Speeds doing the same, an I know the Egyptians did it using a Chinese sub.
@TheKeithvidz4 жыл бұрын
@@shanerooney7288 Mines weren't even considered - and Speeds?
@shanerooney72884 жыл бұрын
Blow up the logistics and it wouldn't even matter if the carriers are afloat.
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@TheKeithvidz We know back in November 2006 a Chinese Song managed to slip past the entire escort fleet and surface within range of the USS Kitty Hawk. So ... Article 32 hearings and mandatory drug tests revealed 2000+ US sailors we're pretty high. Some on Speed yes. He probably means the Swedes with the Gotland class. Specifically JTFEX 06-2 against the USS R. Reagan the most advanced US carrier in operation. China invented naval mines 1000s of years ago. Yea prepare to expect those?
@TheKeithvidz4 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage china has the biggest mine inventory.
@1977Yakko4 жыл бұрын
I don't think carriers will be obsolete any time soon but they're increasingly vulnerable , especially against peer opponents.
@RamalingamKB4 жыл бұрын
What about micro drones!! All we need is an LOCATION data. Am I right
@SgtMajorSkull4 жыл бұрын
Yes, a squadron of drones with tactical nuclear warheads can easily take out the carrier And it's group. Even a fleet of mini-drones by air and sea and submarine can easily take out a carrier group. Never mind long range hypersonic missiles and self-cavitating nuclear torpedoes. With today's technology carriers are a sitting duck that cost Billions each and each a $million a day to operate and maintain, and Yes, that's a $Million each carrier everyday. Talk about a money hole... And can one think of anything more vulnerable than a large, slow moving object right out in the open.
@jc.11913 жыл бұрын
@@SgtMajorSkull Tactical nukes will cause escalation. Very bad idea.
@SgtMajorSkull3 жыл бұрын
@@jc.1191 Escalation... As in the "US" just announcing More sanctions against Russia. Russians now realize their is no US-Russian "dialogue" - There is no more hope with talks with the "US" - Russia & the others are preparing for the Inevitable. Have to say that this is the making of the "US" aka the oligarchs that control it.
@jc.11913 жыл бұрын
@@SgtMajorSkull I fully support sanctioning the 💩 out of Russia. It's deserved for all the misinformation warfare and cyber attacks. Under Putin, Russia is a bad neighbor who needs to be boxed in until the Russian people get better leadership.
@Duke_of_Petchington4 жыл бұрын
Doesn’t mention the Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate with a specialty designed hull to be very quiet as well as other thing like Quieter propulsion and better towed sonar array. Canada Ordered 15, Australia 9 and UK 8. 32 in total
@michaelkaba74814 жыл бұрын
Most every threat posed in this video can be countered by f35 information and integration.
@stevecummins3243 жыл бұрын
Against large targets... Capital ships including carriers and subs... Formation flying submersible drones, akin to hedgehog ww2 antisub weapon, and booms/nets. Lots of devices deployed forms a grid/net of devices. Could be activated passively by physical contact just like a mine, or actively. Then other devices home in on sound of explosions. Yes 1 device relatively small explosion, but lots of them after each other. Small, relatively cheep so could be deployed in huge numbers. If can keep up with carrier Might be useable for antisub defence...ie a moving explosive net all around carrier, performing sweep.
@tareqhaider63274 жыл бұрын
Nuclear warheads are greater threat to supercarrier groups,IMO.
@n8vsarestillhere1114 жыл бұрын
Mission kill at best, damaged deck or something similar. It'll take more than one torpedo to sink an aircraft carrier. Back in 2005, the US tried to sink the decommissioned carrier, USS America (CV-66). It took four weeks of punishment from multiple missile and torpedo hits and it still wouldn't sink. Finally when testing was done the carrier was scuttled. It had to sink itself.
@jimmylapok73914 жыл бұрын
But carrier group also has own... submarine protection.....destroyer also very effective to hunt submarine.......
@ligmaboo4 жыл бұрын
who willed be a better sonar operator, a sub crew or destroyer ;)
@MrFlatage4 жыл бұрын
@@ligmaboo Blind girls are best. ;-)
@BMac77733 жыл бұрын
A single sub can triangulate a ships position extremely accurately mr binkov. Doesnt take long either.
@Pavlos.Pavlou4 жыл бұрын
Make a Scenario USA-RUS-EU vs Turkey. Please.
@nerfinator034 жыл бұрын
That's a lot of firepower if any of the three engage seriously.
@donmckeoun79904 жыл бұрын
Hypothetically you can think it's easy to get through a carrier battle groups defense grid. A submarine chances of getting in are not good because each group has an attack sub attached to it. Not saying it could not be done but the forces trying it would take enormous losses
@legendslog39114 жыл бұрын
Hypersonic cruse missiles are the biggest threat to super carriers, couple of hypersonic missiles and boom, $15 billion super carrier will rest in peace!!
@mikeharrington55934 жыл бұрын
Yep aided by satellite target identification, a sitting duck.
@legendslog39114 жыл бұрын
@@thothheartmaat2833 those AI guns have a very low success rate even against subsonic missiles, and we are talking here about hypersonic Those missiles also got MIRVed technology, it would be very hard for a super carrier to escape from an upcoming hypersonic missile with Mach 10 speed Countries will still operate aircraft carriers in future, but not in large numbers Small corvette like naval ships equipped with hypersonic missiles will be the future of navies By the way, it's only my guess as nobody knows that what will happen in the future!!
@thothheartmaat28334 жыл бұрын
@@legendslog3911 is it really that hard to calculate an incoming trajectory and plan a counter trajectory?
@legendslog39114 жыл бұрын
@@thothheartmaat2833 it's not that easy to track a hypersonic projectile(like of Avangard) And what about MERVed ones
@thothheartmaat28334 жыл бұрын
@@legendslog3911 well from what I know about mirv missiles is that they descend from up high where they separate from the missile. An ideal point to destroy the missile would be before it separated. Perhaps if a high flying craft were able to intercept the missile before separation, maybe this craft could be part of the carrier group. Or what about lasers and cluster bombs? If the targeting systems are really that bad then they should deploy a defense measure that has a high likelihood of destroying the incoming projectile by creating a field of non traversability in the most likely area the missile will travel for the most likely duration it will attempt to occupy that space. Some sort of concussion or electronics disturbing force. Or a bunch of little mini missiles that cover an area and seek the projectile.. little drones or something. Or if you have one of those lasers that can bend space time and make a black hole maybe that would do some damage. Or a decoy with a beacon that forces all incoming missiles to think it's the target.