Incredible Reasons Why US Navy Aircraft Carriers are Almost Impossible to Sink
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 фев 2021
- US aircraft carriers are state of the art weapons of war, designed to be nearly unsinkable, and today we are going to prove it. Check out today's epic new military video where we countdown the top 10 reasons US Navy aircraft carriers are so crazy hard to take out!
🔔 SUBSCRIBE TO THE INFOGRAPHICS SHOW ► ruclips.net/user/theinfograp...
🔖 MY SOCIAL PAGES
TikTok ► / theinfographicsshow
Discord ► / discord
Facebook ► / theinfographicsshow
Twitter ► / theinfoshow
💭 SUGGEST A TOPIC
www.theinfographicsshow.com
📝 SOURCES:pastebin.com/wE52W7pL
All videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted.
The last time I heard a ship was unsinkable, she sank on her maiden voyage
Titanic 😂
Funny
Sad bismarch noises
That's why the word almost is used
Only the media made claims that the Titanic was PRACTICALLY unsinkable
“When an American Aircraft carrier hits an iceberg, the iceberg sinks.”
-Titanic
The violinists are playing the sad song on the iceberg, not the carrier.
well icebergs probably wont even exist in a couple decades
@@pooploops807 maybe even less then that
Titanic was British built.
I was gonna like this comment, but its at 888 likes so my ocd won't let me
What’s craziest to me is that the largest boat (or at least among) in the world is also one of the fastest. That’s a crazy amount of power
Simple physics. Nothing this big will ever "get up on plane" like ski boats do.
Any boat or ship trying to go fast forms both a bow wave and a stern wave. As the ship speeds up, these waves increase in length until they match and merge with each other. Then, basically, the boat is riding in the valley between these waves, and to go any faster means they have to climb up hill over that bow wave, but they can't . . . and so, because larger ships make bigger, longer-wavelength waves, and longer-wavelength waves travel faster . . . longer ships can travel faster than shorter ones.
Based on what I saw aboard USS Ranger CV 61 , 4 main engines rated at 80,000 Hp.. I personally saw 2.3 Million ft.lbs. of torque at about 170 rpm . 29.9 Kph on 6 . the reason we go nuc. the fuel consumpion at that speed was about 22,000 gph . So Bird farms do have some Hp. Thank You
Almost as if they're nuclear powered.
6 nuclear reactors will get you somewhere.
@@Roonasaur that was a good explanation thank you
I love it how you called it the ‘behemoths of American diplomacy” 😂
Nearly Sixty thousand tons of diplomacy
The most USA logic I've ever heard
Well, it doesn't not work.
Jealous much?
Intimidacy wkwk
Obvious troll is obvious.
Closer to 1hundred thousand tons now
9:33 Today I Learned: A US aircraft carrier is wired up better than the US state of Texas.
Honestly
All that carrier money need to come from somewere
If the superior windmills didn’t freeze up
@@TheLongDon why are u here with these capitalist pigs
@@ayan13 I don't hate those who are in or even those who enjoy capitalism, child, only those who run it
I served on the America from 1978 to 1982 in the Executive Dept. Two Med cruises, I did the Ditch (Suez) and went to Australia and Singapore. Became a shellback in the Indian Ocean. Not bad for an East Coast sailor. 18 years old and the world was my playground.
Uncle was a Coast Guard Commander who got to go on a new carrier's sea trial, said he thought craziest part was full speed, until.. they went from full speed to full reverse (to test the ship) & the front of the flight deck touched the water they stopped so hard...
As an ex-Navy person that spent time aboard USS Forrestal in the late 80's/early 90's and was aboard when she did sea trials, I'm gonna have to call BS on this one. There's a lot of tilting, shaking, and other crazy stuff that happens when you make high speed runs and turns, but dipping the front end of the flight deck into the water when you go full reverse...nah.
Nothing could sink an American 🇺🇸 super carrier
Either you or your uncle is a liar. That's 1000000% impossible
@@jbazinga2385 That's because your captain didn't use the seabrake to instantly halt the ship and spin it 180 to face the other way and start shooting rockets while speeding backward.
Potato launcher gas is bad
Ironically...the sea floor is full of “unsinkable” ships...
true, but not when it comes to modern day naval ships.
@@aKzDViNePaCcO literally every single “unsinkable ship” was modern at the time , NOTHING is unsinkable
@@Jack-ov1gz right, because our engineers and technology didn't improve since the 50s. Got it.
@@aKzDViNePaCcO doesn't matter dumbo, enough hits and anything would sink. There are super sonic and hypersonic missiles now. Their kinetic energy alone is so large it would snap navy frigates in half, let alone warheads. Now imagine 10 of those super sonic cruise missiles with warhead and 1m CEP hitting in the middle of aircraft carrier.
@@sagardahiya6138 doesn't matter Dumbo if you destroy them before the hit.
4:09 everybody gangsta till the us army has secure fspaces
Its crazy how no one else pointed this out
I paused the video and came straight to the comments to see if anyone else noticed 😂
Homer Simpson did the spelling here. But you have to forgive him, it was his first day.
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility is what it should have said.
@@NickB412 This just shows how little care they put into their videos
Fun fact I joined the Navy straight out if high school. After boot camp was stationed on CVN73. They let me drive CVN73 ship before I even had my car drivers license. Pretty wild to be driving a air craft carrier without a car license.
You can fly a plane before you can drive a car 🤷♂️. You don't really have a chance to hit anything in the open ocean.
What do you mean they "let you drive it"?
@@stephenponnet462 ships crash all the time in the open ocean. Other ships, icebergs, whales, etc.
@@QuasiELVIS I drove where the captain told me to go. It's not like I was spinning donuts on purpose out there. We did you a ton of figure 8s tho.
Smaller ships most certainly have SCIFs, which among other things, are used in direction finding, and relaying targeting information back to the carrier.
Yes, that was 1000 percent incorrect. I deployed on destroyers and worked within scifs
@@Carsondaily324
That’s cool, do you have a instagram because I have a few questions 🙋🏾♂️?
SCIF
S is for Secure
C is for compartmentalized
I is for information
And F is for space
Wait what...
Edit: thanks for telling me that f stands for facility but this was a joke lol
americans
F is actually for facility
S is for "Sensitive" (although this is a common mistake).
F is for "Facility".
"Spaces" on ships are what most people would call rooms - the SCIF would be inside an isolated space inside the ship.
@@CrzyRedneck false. F IS FOR FRIENDS WHO DO STUFF TOGETHER
The f is silent
I noticed that they didn't mention a very critical component -- a crew that is highly trained to fight casualties, limit damage, and effect repairs.
Not exclusive to American carriers, but an important system nonetheless!
1:38 he talks about no crew on the USS America
Must not be in the navy. Highly trained is a joke
Damage Control (DC) drills are practiced and practiced again and again. The only ships that drill harder are subs who lack the option of jumping ship into the water if things get bad. No, not an option at all when 600+ meters under the ocean
The Yamato and Musashi survived so long despite their size because of their highly experienced and trained crews. Musashi took something like 19 torpedoes and 20-something bombs before she finally sank.
I've personnally seen Kitty Hawk class carriers far exceed the 32 knot speed limit traversing the Pacific, and Nimitz class carriers far exceed 60 knots; it was frightening...
60 knots, seriously?
@@dreadfulbodyguard7288 The perks of being air det.
@@dreadfulbodyguard7288 No way. Nowhere near that fast.
The fact this was published 2 years ago, and that even at that point it was public knowledge, makes you wonder what level things are at by this point.
The Russian government watching this: Interesting...
hmmmm.";(
Interesting...
more pike china
@@arthurbenedetti9146 both
Just fire a nuclear torpedo from a diesel-electric submarine
@@soup3385 I think they just wanted to sink a ship, not cover a quarter of the globe in nuclear winter. Reminder: a nuke will effect everyone, including the user, and they know that.
USS America: the most creative name ever
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Los Angeles angels would like a word with you
I know
@@cmcb634 lol
All the technological advances are creative enough
Eventually, you did discuss the AEW (actually, AWACS) plane, but you missed the critical point of radar horizon, which is why I consider this to be the most important CVBG asset.
But overall, an absolutely top-notch report.
So you should do a scenario video regarding these systems (I’m really curious about the speed) vs the hypersonic missile.
"behemoths of american diplomacy" - a perfectly american phrase. gotta love it.
If you wanted to be honest with yourself these carriers have helped many people through diplomatic missions militarily and political
@@PrinceIsot They most certainly haven’t! 😒
@@dennissmith7214 yes they have
American be like you are going to trade with us and you are going to like it.
It's a very accurate phrase along being american.. pieces of hardware like these keep other super powers from invading with out fighting... you know like how security cameras or beware of dog signs..
Imagine the conversation in that room when they suggested using the carrier as a stress test.
"Well we could scrap it for parts or sell it or-"
"LETS SEE HOW MANY MISSLES IT TAKES TO SINK IT"
It's a good way of using it as if you don't know how much he can take you'll never know when he's in real danger.
A truly American way to do things
Sell it to who??? What??? Why would you let any other country get their hands on it
@@geminirox8635 a lot of country sells their equipment after they get a better one and it's not every country with an armaments entreprise for building their own army and must buy from other ones
@@geminirox8635 Taliban Lol
I have personally worked on Weld Inspection and Quality Control Technologies on US NAV-SEA projects and there is no question about how well constructed the world's #1 naval power truly is
I have no doubt a carrier is super hard to sink. I think the bigger fear in an actual war is just them getting damaged enough that they'd be out of commission and need repairs. Especially in the Pacific against China, where we rely heavily on carriers to project air and naval power. An all out attack against the carriers right away could be enough to put a giant portion of our capabilities out of the battle. It's definitely still very worrying.
Faster and/or better shipbuilding capabilities in China too. Replacing sunken hardware won’t potentially be as hard.
I assume things have changed quite a bit since Millennium Challenge 2002 (a war game training that year in the Persian Gulf) but the USN (and carriers) were at a time very vulnerable to swarm attacks. As we have seen in Ukraine and will see in all future conflicts unmanned drones have the potential to be cheap counters to expensive defense technology.
Infographics : "They re almost impossible to destr-.... "
Kong : 'Hold my bananas'
M O N K E F L I P
*Kong vs USA Aircraft carrier*
Godzilla appears
Bruh are we just gonna ignore them saying the F in SCIF stands for “space?”
I don't get it either
The F stands for Facility, The video is a lie.
Yeah….that’s not the only thing they were slightly off about. He also said Destroyers and Cruisers don’t have SCIFs buuut, that’s not exactly true.
In 2005, the US Navy's new aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan, "sank" after being hit by torpedoes. It happened during a war game pitting a carrier task force, and its escorts, against a Swedish sub. That sub, HSMS Gotland, pulled off that feat despite being a relatively cheap diesel-powered boat. So well, so much for being unsinkable, atleast it is not unhittable.
Buddy those are simulations.... In the real world where it actually matters, it's been tested and did not sink.
I'm very impressed, they're basically impossible to destroy, true beasts
My father was on the carrier USS Enterprise in '68. He showed me 100's of pictures from the flight deck. Now that he passed away, I have memories of his naval stories.
My dad flew in the super hornets
My grandfather was there too! I never got to meet him, but he left me plenty of memorabilia from the ship
Can u guys shut up I know u guys are lying
@@evillord7808 why do they have to be lying
@@gio7861 ye, i hate it when people dont believe someone saying something´
Number 11: Lastly the American Aircraft Carrier can transform into a bipedal mechanical robot. similar to that of a human, the transformed ship has arms, legs, a head, and is capable of grabbing and intercepting enemy ships or aircrafts.
Is it make or female ?
@@DragnoxzI shall not ask why you want this information for I do not want an answer I am expecting.
@@Dragnoxz boats are mostly female so…
That robot's name? Optimus Prime.
@@Islandkid679 no its invincible prime
“SKIF - stands for Secure Compartmentalized Information Fspace”
Someone must have taken the day off here.
I think the issue is whether you can make the flight deck unusable. A carrier which can't launch or land planes may be unsinkable but it is also unusable. I wouldn't try to sink it but try to drop mines on the deck via modified cluster munition delivery vehicles and make deck operations dangerous to the planes.
Cluster bombs are a war crime
All you need is one torpedo to the rear destroying the props and rudder, ship will be adrift in a combat zone. U.S will have to evacuate the ship and scuttle her.
You make good point but, based on my limited knowledge the flight deck is for jets, which engage in targets that are hundreds of miles away. So the point is you wouldny be able to even get that close.
If you're closer enough to damage the flight deck then the flight deck is already unusable.
They're are a ton of other components that are meant to defender closer, not to mention the carrier is also accompanied by a fleet of ships who have much better close range combat. Also, the carrier would still be a very vital information hub for said ships
If you're somehow able to just casually drop bombs on the flight deck without resistance, you're probably already capable of sinking the entire ship instead lol
I also heard that the titanic and the Yamato were unsinkable as well
The whole "they thought Titanic was unsinkable" thing didn't happen until after she sank. They didn't design her to be unsinkable. They designed her to be the hardest civilian ship to sink in peace time. And, for a ship sailing in 1912, they succeeded.
Also, the Japanese knew the Yamato wasn't unsinkable. It's why she was rarely used and why her last mission was a suicide one. She was to beach herself in the Philippines and act like a Japanese fort, shelling targets until the Americans inevitably bombed her into oblivion.
@@foxymetroid I agree
Well those ships aren’t aircraft carriers
@@SilkyJJ no ship is unsinkable. Aircraft carriers included
Yamato was only unsinkable because they barley used it 😂😂
US Navy: Our ships are unsinkable!
Icebergs of the world: Is that a challenge?
Also, drones operate in swarms -- it can overwhelm any defense system with 0 casualties since it's all controlled remotely and/or by AI. Not to mention carrier defenses cannot counter hypersonic missiles such as the DF21 or the Avangard.
@@lolollolol1436 they will miss the target if their control command destroyed. That's what Growler and hawkeye do.
@@miltonalex5928 You don't need a command link to hit a carrier, it is a rather large and easy to detect object in the middle of an ocean. If you know the location of a carrier when you launch the drones, the drones can find it very easily on their own.
@@miltonalex5928 lol how are you going to destroy their control command when it's 1000s o kms inland? By that logic, the Chinese and Russians can just take out US satellites or EMP it prior engagement as well since we're apparently living in fantasy land when it comes to armchair theorycrafting.
@@disposabull you don't know how drones work do you? You need a command center to control them, hence the name drones. There is no drone that can fly on it's own to a specific target...yet.
as an Aircraft Carrier crewman (not really), I can confirm that aircraft carriers can hold exactly 3 F-35 and 2 F-14 on its flight deck, and that the catapult is placed on the back of the ship
lol thanks for the confirmation
As someone who served upon a carrier I can say one thing for sure. One does not need to sink a carrier you either keep it out of the theater of engagement or you just need to disrupt flight operations. It is much easier for peer nation powers to field long range land based stand off or ballistic weapons to keep a carrier out of striking range. Using land base bombers with stand off weapons is effective as well. The two important things to remember is a carrier task force only has so many missles and close in weapons systems to protect the carrier and as carrier is only as good as the combat range of the strike aircraft it carries. That is why the navy is trying to develop longer range aircraft and stand off weapons. In an engagement say with China over Taiwan in order for the U.S. carriers to operate near the Chinese mainland we would most likely need to have the airforce use stealth bombers to take out Chinese air bases and land based shore to ship weapons but that would be no easy task.
Who would win?
The most modern and advanced aircraft carrier.
Or a single swedish underwater boy?
America needs to get their ASW and Sonar Systems back on track!
Ah yes the Gotland class submarine
That was years ago and we have spent countless countless hours learning from that
Even a smaller mock up, it did not sink.
Wich is the exact reason the aircraft carier is the next Battleship, obsolete and uberexpensive. 1 undetectable super silent Nuclear sub can take a carrier out.
Godzilla split one in half while singing "Just keep swimming."
Who ever came up with the idea of the infographics show it's a genius! I wish I could be part of it 😢
So many of these videos I just watch because his voice is more comfortable than anyone from economics explained to James grimes… it’s not close. I won’t list more: he has the RUclips voice and delivers it right almost always
"US aircraft carries are unsinkable"
Asteroid: **laughs in asteroid**
Laughs in god.
Laughs in logic
laughs in anti air/asteroid defense systems.
@@JS-rv3et unfortunately that does not exist at the current time.
@@GuestUser18 depends on what you mean exists
Murphy's Law: The reason all Almost Unsinkable ships have the word "Almost"
@BullWithInternetAccess nope.. Loose lips. Sorry, someone had to say it.
Come try it
Especially after the Titanic sunk
@@ScrubbyBubbles Let me get my shipwrech missalesd and I will stop by....ready you wallet to pay for the creation of another one cuz you will ned a new one after I am done
Fun fact torpedoes cannot hit a carrier as it has a net half a mile out at all time all the way around it under water which is attached to it. It was a secret well not no more 😅
It's not half a mile
In every action since WW2 our carriers have never faced a determined enemy. It has been proven time and again in war games how vulnerable a carrier is when it does face such. The carriers may be hard to sink, but they will not be hard to neutralize.
Exactly. I never see this part of the argument addressed. Just having the ships have to slink back to a shipyard for repairs would be disastrous in the event of a war outbreak against a peer opponent like China, especially with the distances involved and the fact that the US military is really built purely for delivering a quick, decisive victory. Take the carriers out of the equation early on and the US is put on the backfoot heavily, possibly even irreparably.
Carrier ships are massively outdated
Fun fact : Aircraft Carrier is so strong...
They can carry Godzilla and Kong at the same time while they are fighting 😂
Facts
But can it survive a M O N K E F L I P
@@homehaorao5417 you are so wrong. It is FAX
@@harshagarwal3045 facts plus hacks
@@harshagarwal3045 is your education have problem
Fun fact a Swedish sub “sunk” a US carrier with a torpedo strike during an exercise. The entire task group had no idea the sub was directly below them until they called sunk on the carrier
Ye this was because swedish subs use a very uncommon propulsion system called the Stirling engine! Its a non combustion engine that uses the cold of the outside water and the heat of the air inside the sub to work
It's funny how the sub was small & like 30 yrs old 😂
Sorry, this exercise went on for 2 yrs, and the Gotland was sunk several times too. This was 14 yrs ago, and the USN knew it had been neglecting it's it's ASW defenses. That's why the Gotland was contracted. For training improvements. There have been a lot of upgrading in USN ASW since then, as shown when the USS Ronald Reagan owned a quiet Chinese, Russian-made, Kilo sub when it tried to track her in 2015.
@@777Outrigger it still happened 14 years ago or not 🤷♂️
@@coreymoorey8093 Sure. I don't deny that.
these videos are what makes top best military equipment vunerable, the whole world knows its features and can plan a successful attack
impossible to sink... Meanwhile over at the pentagon they're more than slightly convinced that saturation attacks would allow an enemy to sink an entire carrier fleet.
"60,000 tons of American diplomacy waits menacingly." This made my snort my coffee. Got oil? You need freedom!!!
Freedom from your oil :D
@@ChadwickTheChad Well whatever raison du jour we have a military industrial complex that is barely getting enough cash to feed their hungry children! I just thought his choice of words was pretty hilarious to describe our wehrmacht.
....yeah idk what your describing low key
@@ChadwickTheChad yes you guys do but do not make much profit of it countries like Saudi Arabia make a lot more profit cause their oil reserves are easy to extract.
Even those 60 000 didnt help them conquer my country
4:13 ngl i actually laughed out loud when i read that the f stood for space. leave it to the military to sacrifice a logical acronym for a cool sounding acronym
It's actually Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, the people making the video botched it
well you got abuncha men with the coolest toys on the planet you cant pick up chicks in a car called.
the lolipop. now can ya
I still looking for the coyote and the roadrunner to show up in your little cartoon show .
The silent Swedish submarine that got through all the defenses to line up for a strike seems to put a lot of this in question. And it did that twice! LOL
I served 4yrs in the navy the amount of firepower on a carrier is unreal. Also damage control and firefighting literally starts in bootcamp.
Old former squid here. NEVER mess with a carrier strike group. You won't like the result.
New hypersonic missiles change the equation quite a bit
@@dbarless Maybe...maybe not. I can assure you the US Navy is not gong to sit around and get attacked.
@@psychopompous3207 what else can they do if the missles is not trackable on the radar?
@@fudgesamreh It's not merely radar that acts as a counter. They can use the C-RAM too. Or, they can get hit and then it's all out war.
Two months ago you posted “ is US losing the arm race” in which you indicated a scenario how US Aircraft carrier will be incapacitated. Now this - they are “ almost impossible to sink?” Having a change of heart, do ya?
i don’t think incapacitated is the same thing as sinking, sure you can make an aircraft carrier inoperable but it doesn’t mean you have to sink it
Dude he said it would be damaged if it were hit with a hypersonic missile. Not skink
@@andrewdoesyt7787 what’s the difference between being dead and on life support?
@@ayecho8202 It wouldn’t be even close to sinking. It would just have a giant hole in the top, look how tall they are.
@@ayecho8202 it would still be able to sail back
My uncle Dean was on the CV61 Ranger in the 80’s. Rest in peace uncle Dean.
Godzilla has something to say about this video of yours! Joke aside, it was a super informative video.
4:12 all this time I've been spelling "fspace" wrong
i was looking for this comment
@@nicholas8228 Me too!💯
Me too😂😂😂😂
When you brought up data links, I thought you were going to transition into a Nord VPN ad.
I was stationed aboard the uss kitty hawk CV-63. There's many reasons why we're the world's finest navy.
No need to look any further than the fact that the us spend more on their military than the next seven biggest military spenders in the world combined.
Is it a good thing? I’m not sure.
I was on the Kitty Hawk from 2000 to 2005 three machinery room
Last time someone said a ship was unsinkable, Jack lost the Pearl.
A Swedish submarine: I’m boutta end this carrier’s whole career
Nah, That's just a common Joke that everyone uses since the US carrier Lost to it. Realistically this wouldn't happen
@@Justineexy now here is the thing the sweds would have sunk it to a 100%. Cuz its designed to not be spotted on the radar like how do u win to a invisebly sub?!?! U saw how effectiv the german sub war was like think of it for a sec... America Will lose so hard xD
@@rumnisarkar5496 proof? And don't overestimate sonar
Once a sub fires a weapon, it's much easier to approximate the direction it fired from
And don't forget about Radars that find targets by Heat they produce .-.
Swedish submarine: I’m gonna do what’s called a “pro gamer move”.
@BullWithInternetAccess ok
just wanting to say why has he not talked about that wargame
@BullWithInternetAccess Ök
That submarine got past US submarines and defenses to get to the US carrier?? Impressive!!
@@cooliod45 Yup, they didn't just sink the carrier, the took out the whole fleet in an exercise with a diesel powered submarine. Oooops. This video is nice American propaganda, but not realistic at all. People don't sink US carriers because they don't want to get the Hiroshima treatment from the US after they do.
1:30 This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: great success!
That’s a crazy amount of power
Both Yamamoto and Bismarck battleships were deemed as "unsinkable".
We all know the rest of the story.
Yamato's design was flawed in many ways tho
Did those ships take 4 week's of constant bombardment🤦
The Bismarck was probably scuttled by her own crew, after an insane pounding by the Royal Navy. And it took at least 20 bombs and 15 torpedos all on the same side to take out the Yamato. The Tirpitz had to be hit with Tallboy bombs before it went down. Not easy to sink.
@@ulcolandheer773 yeah also Yamato finally went down only after torpedo hit ammo storage for main cannons (caliber 460mm)
Its not hard to sink a supercarrier, without maintenance, rust would mean it eventually sinks.
Glad to know our ships are so tough! Strength in numbers
The carrier might be unsinkable, but a torpedo in her screws or rudder (reducing the speed or even completely stopping it) or a few missiles tearing up the flight deck (tearing up deck plates, taking out cats and the break cables) can make her unable to conduct flight operations while she still floats. You don't have to sink a ship to remove it from combat.
Granted that with all the defenses a carrier has (including it's airwing and battle group) that's difficult, but by no means impossible. Defenses can be overwhelmed.
*The Infographics Show: Why US Aircraft Carriers are almost impossible to sink! The Titanic: Can we talk?*
Lol, it's English made. No wonder it sinks😉
No no no, the US melted the ice bergs before building the carriers
@@deusexmachina9217 they sunk the bismarck idiot
@@andreaskavak2364 lol, tf is that?😂🤦♂️
@@colinburdett9950 that’s why we are doing nothing for global warming!!
Who would win?
Sneaky IKEA boi.
or
Aircraft carrier.
Carrier cause it is apart of a carrier strike group which includes destroyers. Destroyers have anti submarine torpedoes.
@@macone.ish4295 well tell that to the Swedish who sunk a American carrier with a sub
@@communismisgreat1482 last time an American carrier was sunk by an enemy was 1945, so that's irrelevant.
@@reaganweber7767 war games 2005
@@crytexk102 exactly. War games, not an actual conflict.
My bad, by "enemy", I meant another power that we actually mean to absolutely crush, not run training exercises with.
It needs a man with focus, commitment, and sheer will.
As a french, I'd be interested to know your opinion on the Charles-de-Gaule Strike Group...
Good video !
I was ship’s company onboard the USS America CV66 haze gray and underway from 1993 right up until it got decommissioned.I did Med cruises and several work ups during my time. Wasn’t expecting to hear about my boat in this video. Anchors away my boys….
@@youtubeuser206 The navy is the reason you arent in a chinese concentration camp you doorknob
@@ryanholder186 Really? :)
@@stevenk8189 mostly yeah..
You may not see this but I wanna hear what your most life threatening moment on the carrier
Saw the USS America parked off Corfu Town in the 90's.
That thing was huge even anchored off shore.
Locals said hms illustrious was there few weeks earlier and was so small it parked in the harbour.
I suddenly felt so sad at the state of our Royal Navy. 😢
The USS Oriskany was also very hard to sink. She was retired and sunk out in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006 as part of an artificial reef program. She did not go down willingly.
- SOS, we are sinking!!!!
- What are you sinking about?
This weekend, party on my new boat, Unsinkable II.
"Impossible to sink". Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
But also, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.. Others speak of our unsinkability but in 26 years of service on carriers, we never say it about ourselves.
@@michaelmappin4425 Amen. Kind of like being in high school and saying to the group of cheerleaders, "Hey, watch this!" You know it's not ending well.
@@michaelmappin4425 titanic, britannic and another similar ship (forgot the name) all sinked, even though they were called unsinkable
Moral of the story: *dont call a ship unsinkable*
@@ron3557 right! Didn't. Wouldn't.
triumphant pride precipitates a dizzying fall
"Against convention threats"
Watch the Castle Bravo explosion at the bikini atoll. No ship survives that.
Aircraft carrier: *survives anyway*
Didn't Prinz Eugen survive a couple of those?
@@dougerrohmer not castle bravo but two nukes nonetheless
Using nukes would only work against them. Using a tooth brush to sink the aircraft carrier would be more effective.
eh as stated in the vid the aircraft carrier took a beating from outside sources but the only way they sunk it is internal structure damage
Watching this during WW3 in April 2022!
I was on a destroyer and we were always cannon fodder for the mother ship we also followed behind them so if a jet crashes we can get the pilot out of the water.
US Carrier: Nearly unsinkable
Some Swedes: I’m gonna pretend I didn’t see that
The submarine managed to get one torpedo hit in a simulation. It was not enough to sink the carrier though.
The world: USA your defense system is pure government advertising to cover corruption with military contractors
Northamerican: my military is the best
A group of terrorist: 9/11
@@kraftwerk8077 Military contractors are over paid, but the U.S. does not play world police just to give them more money. That is just ridiculous.
Ronald Reagen: I've already tried. And yet, I got sunk by just three torpees.
@@Matthew-Anthony If 1 torp made it through, that means more can.
With such powerful arsenal of weapons, the US is very generous indeed to share some of those with the Taliban.
Yep with sleepy joe leaving some early presents for them.
@@darkch1p thanks to trump for making deal with literal terrorists.
@@darkch1p While i hate Biden, Trump deal with the Taliban was terrible!
You win the comment contest! Well done
@@CarlosCarlangas awww you're in denial aren't you?
The white star line: our ships are unsinkable
US aircraft carrier: hold ma planes.
Unsinkable
Ice bergs: hold my titanic pieces
Ah yes, fpace, one of my favorite words for a Tuesday afternoon.
In the Fspace that's were the LGBTLOL aircrew gets their specialist training?
The ship itself is sinkable, but due to insane technology, help and firepower it becomes nearly unsinkable.
It's far more likely to sink by accident than by attack
Some comfy hypersonic carrier killers will make quick work of it
Naw, They’ve already been proven to be less effective.
I've worked as a Voice artist (in portuguese) and I Just wanna say that the narrator does a fantastic job in these videos.
SCIF stands for: secret compartmented information facility, but thanks for actual giving the Top secret side of the house some credit, it’s rare that happens
This information is the most accurate I've seen outside of being in the Navy. Kudos
🧢🎩
I would say this video is not very accurate.
@JS L How so? I've been in the Navy 18 years, 2 frigates, a destroyer, and 2 carriers, and I thought it was pretty good.
@@jsl6161 what's not accurate???
@@thelord2949 he did say secure compartmentalized information ... Fspace. lol.
its a little nitpicky, but space doesn't even start with an f... the f in SCIF doesn't stand for... space...
Floating vs operational are two very different things. Sure you may not have sunk the ship but so long as it’s rendered inoperable for a long period of time. The effect is the same.
In modern warship it play as a different role because the battle group will be busy when you need to be using your own attack any aircraft could sink it if it had the power
This just shows how the battleship movie that came out in 2014 I think actually scaled. They said even taking out one of the destroyers would be Insanely hard and the aliens just took out two destroyers in a matter of minutes. 💀
To be fair they were facing aliens with insane firepower
Were the aliens using alien technology though?
S: Secure
C: Compartmentalized
I: Information
And
Ah yes, Fpace
They're using that old school writing style where 's' looks like a lower case f, obviously.
Bercilak 🤣
Ahahaha
Ikr 😂
The carrier they were trying to scuttle, did it have ammunition or fuel on board? I wonder whether a direct hit on a fully operational carrier would both be much much more difficult to achieve but were it to happen it might be far more devastating (until the crew enacted fire control measures of course).
That's an excellent point; that is the classic problem.
Carriers don't have stockpiles of ammo sitting around like a battleship. Yes, an operational carrier is going to be harder to hit, because it's never going to stop moving. Having a crew on board is going to severely limit damage done, not the other way around. Can't see how that would even be considered.
@@KKSuited But the aircraft assigned to a carrier would need aviation fuel and all sorts of armaments so the carrier would have to carry quite a lot of flammable fuel and missiles even if it doesn't use them directly.
i read the title and immediatly went: a swedish u-boat xD
The crew who left "Dog Zebra" every single compartment was water tight... if it had a crew, it would sink with a few solid hits under the water line. Served on 2 carriers, the Kitty Hawk & Nimitz, they have a battle/Strike group for protection for a reason as well as an E2 Hawkeye at all times. They barely float on their own.
Aircraft carrier: *gets nuked*
The guy in charge of dusting:
I just dust that!
*sees thumbnail*
...are those Thunderbird F-22's? And they're on an aircraft carrier? There would be so many questions if I saw this irl 😅
Imagine not being able to sink ur own stuff! That's insane how much it could take
The stronger a generation is the weaker the descendants
That's why empires rise and fall
I mean, that’s not really true considering the latest example of that was like more than 800 years ago... nowadays we’re fueld by technology and invention and the younger generation in the US are souls based off of that.
@@andrewdoesyt7787 SSSR,British Empire is a new example
Dude Britain was back in the 16 century when they were the most powerful and the USSR went down for completely different reasons.
@@andrewdoesyt7787 don't worry time will tell :-)
@@thegreatafrican3367 yep, weel see!