10 Biggest Aircraft Carriers In The World (Biggest Warships in 2020)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- The 10 Biggest Warships In The World Today. We have selected 10 warships which include any type of combatant ship. Generally, A warship or combatant ship is a naval ship that is built and primarily intended for naval warfare. Usually, they belong to the armed forces of a state. As well as being armed, warships are designed to withstand damage and are usually faster and more maneuverable than merchant ships. Unlike a merchant ship, which carries cargo, a warship typically carries only weapons, ammunition, and supplies for its crew. Warships usually belong to a navy, though they have also been operated by individuals, cooperatives, and corporations.
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com
#WOW #warship #USNavy
you should've just named all of 10 nimitz supercarriers and be done with it lmao
And the kexington
Lexington
@@kitbishop6799 what
Where's the fun in that?
Longest carrier - CVN-65, USS Enterprise, 1,123 ft long.
Or 342 meter...
How come it's longer than the other Nimitz-class?
0
@@suzukirider9030 Because its not a Nimitz class. Its an Enterprise class of only one has been build.
@@shredthecable8883 I see, thanks! Read about her now... Didn't know she was the first nuclear-powered carrier ever to be built!
And she's now awaiting to be scrapped? WTF why not make the Enterprise into a museum ship, and put her next to the Iowa? Nuclear reactors too much of a hassle and liability? Perhaps the entire hull became a bit radioactively contaminated and will stay so for many decades now? But I mean if someone served on her for years, surely a 2-4 hour museum visit by civilians won't be hazardious... But perhaps a nuclear vessel is not "museumable" because nuclear tech is highly guarded to this day?
This was truly humorous. The extravagant lengths gone to announce each of the Soviet carriers scavenged by other countries, as if they'd created them from scratch is great. It was a great prelude to the punchline. I really appreciate how you skim over the many amphibious ships of the USN, with a single entry. Listing them by type, let alone acknowledging that we have several of each, would really throw your count off. It's good setup for the punchline though.
Then, we get to the punchline, where you casually let it slip that the #2 slot isn't actually a ship, but a class of ship with 10 already built and at sea, and another 4 on the way. So yeah, if you listed them individually, as you did for every other navy, the entire top 10 would be USN carriers. But, if you're going to list them by individual ships, let's go with the top 50... In fact, let's have fun, and be sure to include the submarines too, and the logistics ships that allow the rest of the navy to function.
Yeah, it wouldn't be fun then. It could even be a little depressing, to realize how truly lopsided the world's navies are.
Well put. good sir :) The USN has more warships then anyone else.
Exactly my thoughts
Yes, we know the G Ford and Nimitz are CLASSES - but it would be boring to run through 10 like ships + 10 more like ships, wouldn't it?
AND yeah - it was totally laughable with the 3 Kutznetzov class, a mistake, I agree on that.
@@MeBallerman oh, you're totally right. My point is that the list is very disingenuous. It pretends at things that simply are not true.
@@ChristnThms...you sound like one of those self indulged, superiority complex type Americans who enjoys flaunting how much better America is at almost everything. You must believe America to be the best nation on planet Earth, huh? That’s why much of the world hates America & Americans.
(JK, I am too! God Bless America!!! Love it or leave it)
Props to Russia for having the world’s only wood fired carrier!
The Captain says halfway through an action, "Make smoke", first officer replies " We are already contributing 5% towards global warming"
lol
🤣🤣🤣🤣👍
Feeling Proud to our INS Vikramaditya 👍🏼❤️
Mother Russia's weapons are the best.
INS - VIKRANT & INS- VISHAL are waiting to be in this list in top 5
I've been informed that the QE class fully loaded with airgroup, fuel and weapons will be over 80,000 tons. Outside of the US, she truly is the largest carrier.
Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes: "Adorable."
@@nocount7517 Adorabley Childish trolling, here is some back, there is hardly any difference in deck and hangar size between the QE and Nimitz classes, the only reason there is such a difference in the displacement figure is, like nearly all yanks, the Nimitz is just fat and overweight, about 40,000 tons heavier, but actually not that much bigger, just another unnecissarily overweight yank.
@@tonytye8963 Not sure why I am bothering to engage in this childish pissing match as I actually think they are both decent ships (although one is clearly better), but if you really want to go down that route and use the same old joke that seems to be all foreigners can ever come up with to insult Americans "Durr hurr Americans are fat haha". Lets instead set aside the insults/trolling and examine the facts:
1. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers typical loadout is around 40 F-35Bs and some Helicopters with a maximum possible loadout somewhere around 55-70ish. Nimitz class carriers typically carry 60-75 aircraft of all types with somewhere around 50 of those typically being F/A-18 variants (F-35Cs will replace the non-super hornet F/A-18 variants at some point.) and a maximum theoretical aircraft load of somewhere around 85-90. So yeah needless to say in terms of aircraft loadout the extra displacement is certainly not wasted.
2. The Nimitz class also uses the vastly superior CATOBAR configuration so that it can use traditional non-STOVL planes for example the F-35C rather than the vastly inferior STOVL F-35B. Not just that, but it can actually launch and recover planes decent payloads while using STOVL greatly hinders the weight of payloads that can be carried. Once again a significant capability advantage for the Nimitz that accounts for a significant amount of the displacement that you label as being "unnecessarily overweight".
3. In another noteworthy capability gap between the two ships, the Nimitz is Nuclear powered while the Queen Elizabeth is diesel and gas-powered meaning that not only is the "overweight yank" embarrassingly faster than the Queen Elizabeth, but it also does not need the same logistics chain for fuel and at least in terms of propulsion has effectively unlimited range (Although I will concede that the range and logistics point is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the other ships in the Carrier Strike Group are not nuclear powered. Also, they still need food, other supplies, and maintenance.)
So yeah needless to say the extra displacement from the Nimitz doesn't go to waste.
@@Delta36A1 Going on about why a 9 or 12 billion carrier is better than a 3 billion carrier is'nt much to do with the original point or particularly groundbreaking. The point was size and the first person being patronising about it, to which you pretty much jump in and support because you are upset over a bit of banter. If the 3 or 4 times more expensive ship wasn't more capable there would be something very wrong indeed, it's not an arguement or even the argument.
That arguement was reference size and my point was that there isn't a great deal of difference in deck size and hanger size for the QE to be patronisingly called cute by the Nimitz class. And if a form of launch system is retro fitted ever, there won't be that much difference concidering the expence and crew hike. There has been plenty of overpower facilitated into the QEs, that was the one nod they did to future lauch system possibilities, the most difficult bit.
Emberrassing speed difference is about 5 or 6 knots or maybe slightly more in capability, not really embarassing as fleets move slower, but put in the usual patronising and exagerrated way that Americans do on RUclips. And unlimited range is a very expensive top trumps games card, for kids to show off about and not much more. Nuclear has many dissadvantages as well as some advantages, the biggest myth is not needing to be refuelled, not only do the aircraft need fuel, the carrier does as well, in the form of nuclear rods(bloody expensive ones at that), it's just a different method that is easier and carried onboard and routed in an out of service/use electronically and remotely.
The RN has never had nuclear surface ships and doesn't want them, because of the dissadvantages in the UKs RN circumstances outweighing the advantages in their view.
The UK would need to build the facility to build the reactors, it would have to train everybody, it would have to build larger decommissioning sites, it would have to import foreign fuel and be dependant and it would cost the price of one ship to decommission them both at 1.5 billion each, and the ships would cost 3 or 4 times as much, as well as 2 year ir more long overhaul programs that a smaller navy can't capability wise afford, but the bigger navy can work around. Many of our commonwealth allies have nuclear port restrictions and as you said but played down. Whats the point of unlimited milage when there is a limit to the size of half way round the planet and the ships can be refuelled on the move anyway,. All of your surface support fleet is none nuclear powered, they are hardly going to be left behind.
Sorry but in the UKs position this is a no brainer, and we would have Zero carriers if they were nearly 12 billion each. No way the Nimitz can patronize the QEs because its a bit bigger and a bit faster, for 3 times the price, and 3 times the crew, but way less than 3 times the sortie rate, in fact not even near twice at the max.
There WILL be a launch system fitted one day, as F35B will not last 50 years, its a decade or two at most and something will replace it, i'm hoping Tempest will happen and it can be married into the carriers, hopefully with a lauch system as well.
Ps - I even said i was trolling in responce
Uhhh, to be precise the most recent estimate of QE's full dpmt is 77,000+ t and close to 80,000t, not yet passing 80,000. She is still smaller than Kitty.
So the Gerald Ford can travel forever without needing to replenish food weapons jet fuel or uranium. Nice
Eeeeerrrrmmm In theory yes if they had on board hydroponic Bay prouduceing fruits and vegetables and lab grown meat and if it had on board oil rinfenry becouse the fighters still use jet fuel and still need to be refilled after every sortie in theory if it had all those on board then yes but short answer is NO... but it could be done if a submarine ever found a way to grow on board food and meat then hell yes as water and air is drawn from the sorrunding sea water and its nuclear powered... it would never ever have to surface and it would be the ultimate weapon in any navy its an ultimate goal
Ughh u put gerald r ford in number 3 in the thumbnail and i was curious what would be number 1 and 2. Turns out i didnt learn anything new... well played
Uhhhh, concerning displacement, QE is way larger than Kuz and shandong and liaoning.
theRussian smokey joe breaks down more than a Lada lol
At least it breaks down.
Nice explain by buzz
Great love from India
Also include ins vikrant
We sacrifice our Universal healthcare to be No. 1 on this list. You damn right!!!
I was a business man doing business
They put a battlecruiser in an aircraft carrier top 10. You can put the new INS Vikrant on the list when it's complete.
Under construction not included
Our carriers have to conform to a certain size so they can fit through the Panama Canal.
Since the Midway Class, all American carriers built since have been to large to pass though the Panama Canal and must round Cape Horn to reach the Pacific from the Atlantic and vice a versa.
Eventually they'll have to widen the canal if ships civilian and military continue to get bigger and wider.
the next french AC will be huge, can't wait to see it
Mais hélas tjr pas aussi gros que les récent porte avions nucléaire.
Still not as impressive as American carriers. No other country has one that can match one.
Even India is building a new carrier ins vikrant as well as a super carrier ins vishal
@@ronpetrovich2593 No one can beat America
France won’t get a carrier it I’ll CDG needs replacing, it can’t afford 2 carriers.
CDG will be here for many more years, it’s only recently came out of a major refit.
America even, would be better off having more 70,000 ton QEC sized carriers instead of fewer GRF carriers
Sorry, you lost me soon as you decided your criteria was length, and only length. Ship size is generally best described by its displacement, not its length alone, as a ship built for high speed will have a very high length to beam ratio. Length means very little when comparing ships, there were large destroyers almost as long as Battleships that mass ten times the displacement of the Destroyers.....
Destroyers 800 feet long? What was it? A floating pencil?
Did they change the video title or something? It says 'biggest aircraft carriers in the world'.
@@DarkTranqz yet didn't list them in order and left larger ships off the list because of length which is relatively trivial in everything except putting it into dry dock.
@@theant9821 Length is not trivial in carrier design. It has tremendous bearing on aircraft launch and recovery speed...which is the main purpose of the design for aircraft carriers.
@@vchism712 it used to until HMS Triumph and more importantly HMS Ark Royal brought about the angled deck then the Harrier brought VTOL/STOVL to the table and carrier overall length became less and less important.
Kirov as aircraft carrier... nothing more to say
It would carry quite a fleet of aircraft attacking it with itself if in battle 😂
Ford class, nothing more to say
@@keeganconnally4141 didn't the Bismarck provoke a similar reaction in Germany on the way to brest, then HMS Ark Royal crippled it to be slaughtered by home fleet.
Maybe assumptions aren't always correct.
The ANT well considering the current Nimitz class is one of the most if not the most powerful ship in the world and the Ford is an improvement on the Nimitz I’m pretty sure it’s safe to assume that it’ll rule the seas for a while
@@keeganconnally4141 i reckon it would have been better to return to conventional fuel and have more of them, they'd be just as capable and cheaper to run build etc.
Nuclear power is unnecessary on surface ships, they still need to resupply, except for a larger crew because of the nuclear bit. Its an unnecessary frivolity, more carriers could do more to the same high standard with conventional fuel.
Kuznetsov, Liaoning and Shandong are basically the same ship if you look at length and shape (and idea)
辽宁买的瓦格良的舰体，山东仿的辽宁
Shandong is homemade, Liaoning is not made in China
Shandong is based on 1143.5 Russian series but modernized. Kuznetsov. vikramaditya(Gorshkov in russia). liaonin (sold by ukraine as metall and rebuild in china) is ships 1143.5
0:35 USS Enterprise CV-6 Yorktown Class, commissioned 12 May 1938. 0:38 USS Enterprise CVN-65, the first nuclear aircraft carrier, commissioned 25 November 1961. They are two different ships.
If Russians have a fetish for submarines, Americans surely have a fetish for an aircraft carrier LMAO
The 10th spot should have gone to the Izumo class DDH of the JMSDF. Although classified as a "helicopter destroyer" , in reality its a carrier. With little modifications it could carry the F-35 fighter. Its length and displacement are nearly the same as the Kirov. However if may be able to support a higher displacement than advertised if equipped with fighters.
And the Kutznetsov is only nominally a seaworthy vessel. It spent most of its existence in drydrock under repair. And when it has been put to sea, it usually has a tugboat assigned to it in case it breaks down. The easiest way to spot it visually is just to look for the smoke trail coming from its stacks.
do not forget the Italian Cavour with f-35 and soon Lhd Trieste , the Indian one is an old wreck.
That First ship HAS TO be able to go MUCH MUCH further than 1,000 miles.
4:53 The Queen Elizabeth looks so wide compared with the Vikramadiya
Kirov class reporting!
Helium mix optimal.
Bombard is to the station.
This is stupid, obviously, they mean longest. HMS Queen Elizabeth is bigger in overall mass than some vessels above it in the list. Bigger in Tonnage.
Did they change the video title? It says biggest aircraft carriers in the world..
@@DarkTranqz and iron warships have always been judged by tonnage, the bigger the displacement the bigger the warship is how it works.
It's what she said at the start of video lol
@@noah95v99 The clue is in the title "10 Biggest Aircraft carriers in the world". Read it above lol.
@@jetpigeon8758 well from me it's just an opinion and depend on the person because for me biggest can mean longest you are being a bit rude
4 years on the Big E 1983-1987
Wait you worked on the Uss Enterprise?
My mom spent 3 on the Nimitz and my dad spent 4 on the Kitty Hawk
Interesting how dirty the exhaust is on the Russian Kuznetsov carrier. Seem to recall reading somewhere that it was known for exhaust issues.
I've read that it's powered by a tug more often then it's own propulsion. It's never even called out on Russian TV, the embarrassment it is. It was made in an "me too!" kinda mode. Russia put the military effort elsewhere.
Make a video on Tejas mk 1a 🆚 JF 17 block lll
So apparently the range of the battlecruiser kirov is only 18 1/2 km, nice. Goes out onto sea and has to come back shortly after.
It's probably for coastal defense with air support.
@@atharvshukla6424 It has a nuclear powerplant, so it should have infinite travel distance, same as the American ships.
And there is the mighty USS LUXINGTON
USS Lexington
Kirov is battlecruiser to the Western because of its length and artillery
However, with the Russian, they are just normally a guided-missile cruiser
In Russia, aircraft carriers have never been built, only aircraft-carrying cruisers, that is, a ship that itself can fight with different types of targets because it has a lot of weapons, unlike Western "barges"that need protection because they can not protect themselves.
LOL Hmmm Barges need Tugboats. I can think of only one Barge Carrier that has Tugboats sent out to sea with it. Care to guess the weak sisters name? Hint: It is a Russian name.
Lol I was thinking to myself when I seen the thumbnail - what the hell aircraft carrier is bigger than a Ford class? Typical clickbait 😒 Number 3 in the thumbnail is actually number 1. Nice one..
One of those Chinese Coral reefs they illegally built on (that are sinking, hahaha). Don't they call them "Their unsinkable Carriers"?
I like it. Love you too.
Nice click bait making Ford #3. Only reason I watched this bs. I thought for sure you were going to list Habbakuk for the meme.
Same. I seen the Ford class at number 3 and thought "what the hell aircraft carrier is bigger than a Ford class?" And then seen they just clickbaited the thumbnail lol. Typical.
@@DarkTranqz USS Enterprise cvn65
I assume 5 out of top 6 will be found in South China Sea
1. USA🇺🇸
2. USA🇺🇸
3. China🇨🇳
4. Russia 🇷🇺
5. China 🇨🇳
6. UK 🇬🇧
7. India🇮🇳
8. France🇫🇷
9. USA🇺🇸
10. Russia 🇷🇺
Everyone talking about the actual list, but nobody’s gonna mention that size comparison shot shown multiple times that labels a Royal Caribbean Freedom Class Cruise Ship as a QEC Carrier? (0:19 is the first appearance)
EDIT: “Queen Elizabeth Class Cruise Liner”
liner*
Cool 😎
thumbnails and videos are different, 😂😂😂lol
Ten Nimitz class carriers!
Ford is a monster!
Correct ranking: Gerald R. Ford, 10 Nimitz Class carriers, and the rest.
Do Russian Aircraft Carriers include the tugboat that is constantly pulling them when they break down? 😂😂😂
Do you really believe that American aircraft carriers don 't break the ford? Remind me how the Aveonese broke down Gerald R. Ford
For a hypersonic missile, it 's just a target
Man, they don't need a tugboat or something anymore, it totally broke down this time👀
We indians support russia as it is our best friend
@Danny P. India only uses its weapons and military for self-defense. Understood?
Yes 😂 the US has a carrier strike group, Russia has a carrier tug group 😂
They won't last more than a few minutes when the 'big shock' kicks in!!
What is the big shock you speak of earthling?
@@dota2playersenjehang703 LOL
This video is total BS ...the 10 largest aircraft carrier in the world all belong to the USA.
all aircraft carrier in the world all belong to the USA but thees is clas not total nuber PS :french, rusian and one of chenese carriers do not work at all
That’s not true.
In truth, the figure provided for the HMS Queen Elizabeth Class carriers is when the carriers are empty. Fully loaded tonnage would be somewhere around 72,000 tons. This would put the British carriers in the number 3 spot. The figure quoted for the chinese carriers is already at fully loaded. Also, biggest would mean weight, not length. The longest carrier ever was USS Enterprise- not even mentioned on this list. Britain also takes number 3 in total aircraft, with up to 70+ surged.
I don't know why we are always conservative about warships capability. Yet the most recent estimation shows that QE is capable of carrying 78 aircrafts and will be displacing around 77,000+t
So by 'biggest' you mean by length? Ranking them by tonnage and aircraft capacity would have given a more accurate result. Length counts for very little.
Well the G Ford is highest in terms of AC capacity, despite similar or a tad bit smaller displacement
China's 3rd carrier being built now, at the Jiangnan shipyard an all Chinese design, CATOBAR type with EMALS is expected to be somewhere around 80,000 tonnes. One thing though the Queen Elizabeth class has been quoted lately as around 70,000 tonnes, and not the old figure of 65,000 tonnes?......ps it was a bit idiotic to put a battle cruiser on this list!
It depends on how you measure displacement. Britain usually quotes the displacement of its ships when on a standard, peacetime load. "Full load", ie. When off to war and fully loaded with its maximum number of aircraft, weapons, and manpower, would increase its displacement significantly.
I read, but I'm not certain of it, that China and the US always quote the full load figure when stating the displacement of their ships. (Again, that may be misinformation).
@@arthurfisher1857 Not misinforming. We tend to be conservative as always yet the most recent estimation of the full load dpmt of QE is over 77,000, close to 80,000 with 75-78 airwing capacity.
I have seen this video yesterday....
re edited sorry
You might want to change the title to Active Service carriers as USS Midway, CVN-65 Enterprise and Kitty Hawk are bigger than some of these.
Love the videos but when you say the length of something and kneaders please say it in feet 2
“Kirov class: range 1000 nautical miles or 18,52 km” 😳 oooh....kay. If you count it in km, the Kirov class barely make it out of port 😂 math went wrong there
Kirov has a nuclear propulsion...
nice video!
I would say Shandong looks quite beautiful.
A lot cleaner design than Kuznetsov.
Thanks
10 BIGGEST are ALL US NAVY ships plus a couple extra - NO other country can compare.
Back in the '90s, a US warship was visiting the UK to take part in some ceremonial events. the Captain of the US warship contacted the Captain of a nearby UK warship and said, what is it like being next to the biggest navy in the World? the Captain of the Royal Navy ship asked, what is it like being next to the Best?
Navies are expensive and the US outspends everyone by a considerable margin, that and most other countries don't really need a super massive navy like the US does, unless they plan to attack the US at some point which given the US navy would be suicide just getting to the lower 48.
@Evil Mofo I'd say the population is just the dead end you face after charging through a maelstrom of death and destruction, further highlighting the futility of such an endeavor.
@Evil Mofo Royal Navy Type 45, the world's most effective anti-aircraft platform.
@@jetpigeon8758 True, true and again true. long live the queen.
Crazy how they can make ships that big, little cities at sea.
Thanks
💓India ❤
Nimitz and Ford class is the best
I know about Yamato, Bismarck, Akagi, Kaga, enterprise, Tripaz,musahi ,wischon ,iow , Missouri, Montana, hood
Length over displacement is wrong, what about the number and type of aircraft and it's ability to field them. You wouldn't rank cars on their length but speed, cornering ability and fuel economy...
If the title of this video didn't say "biggest" you might have had a point...
@Svampmoln ship size is almost always ranked by displacement. The video title should be “length”.
@@collinwood6573 It should be "longest" in that case, since you're into nitpicking ;)
It's like listening to Daffy Duck.
i know the Gerald r ford is the biggest aircraft carrier
Goddamn those chinese bats!
You forgot the Typhoon Class Submarine. Over 40.000 Tons.
Lol, the Lioning is a target at best
Size should be based on displacement, not length. According to your criterion, Shawn Bradley is bigger than Shaquille O'Neal.
Size should be classed by Size!!! Ffs
Mark Brown ships and their size are measured in Displacement and Gross Tonnage. The length is simply a dimension.
@@markbrown351 so the biggest building in the world only has to be the tallest does it?
Size should be measured by size not a single dimension, the tallest waterfall isn't the biggest if more water flows over a shorter one.
@@theant9821 No! It would be based on actual volume of the space !
@@theant9821 look at it this way! A ww2 battleship is generally going to have a larger gross tonnage than a modern tanker!! Yet the tanker will because of modern materials and Building practices like modules be in every other way bigger!!!
Nimitz class super carriers can carry more than 75 fighter jets....not 60 as mentioned in the video. also QE2 carrier can only carry 45 fighter jets not 60.
Nimitz and ford class aircraft carriers could carry 90 jets at the max but would only consider this in times of war and the enemy it faced, the UK's QE class carriers will carry about 35 F35b in peace time but just like the American carriers it can carry more in times of war and its opposition, aw well as its helocopters of various models it can carry upto 70 f35b's
RN tend to be conservative. In fact QEs pretty much equal the Nimitzs in airwing capacity with Nimitz just 5-8 more over the margin. some 75-78 vs 83-84
Nimitzs seldom carried over 85 aircrafts. There are extreme cases of 93-95 but that perils the efficiency of the operation intensively.
Liudong Huang u don’t know what u are talking about. QE class is much smaller than Nimitz class, so how does it equal Nimitz class in how many jets it can carry?
@@siadwarsame2045 It is not I say thiswise. It is the DoD that said so. Besides, how is QE much smaller? The deck area ratio is 8:9 with Nimitz slightly larger because she has to fit the forward catapults which takes larger room. The permanent parking mode for the two of them is to hold 108 vs 130 F-35/F-18 respectively while the max operational capacity is to hold a mix of airwings of 78 vs 85 respectively.
Mark 0:33. Huh? Why does the part about CVN-65 begin with a WW2 CV? 🤔 Is it, CV-6?
During WW2 the 'N' designation was for night operation capable.
Sory but I must correct you about the name of fighter jets - you called it Rafael but they are namen Rafalle. Rafael is a name of a person (you know, like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Rafael, ninja turtles 😉), but the aircrsft's name is Raffale which means continious, uninterupted shooting. You know like on spot at the time - single direktor or you can dispurse a raffale (whole magazine of bullets...
I'm so sorry I've been trying to pronounce it the right way ,😄 this was attempt number , honestly I lost counts. I'll try harder. Thankyou I appreciate any kind constructive criticism.
Huge powerful ships, also are very big targets. MAGA!
Big targets that move at 30+ knots, and are supported by a number of very capable warships…
Thumbnail is CLICKBAIT
GeraldFord is no.3 in thumbnail
Yo I just noticed that... Why do people do this?
@@potatojuice5124 For clicks. That's why the thumbnails are all click baits
Why do you call "chinese" old soviet era ships bought second hand and refurbished by the russians? There is nothing "chinese" there but the money paid for the purchase. Technologically speaking, in a confrontation with any equipment designed during this century, they would be hopeless.
The Liaoning was an improved version of the Soviet carrier that China had bought
You are either blind or out of your mind
I've been on hms Hermes 1974
dude you are old. How did you let Osama Bin Soros to take over?
why is the kirov battlecruiser listed when its not a carrier?
This ranking is not the biggest, as you titled it to biggest AC but I could say it as longest AC. How can you rank kuznetsov in No.4 with 58,500tons and QE class at No.6 with 65,000tons.
2:09 she is 5 meters long.....
Than the
All you have to do is name the two ford class and rest are nimitz class
Not sure why the Russian flat top is at number four when the Queen Elizabeth class is bigger.
N. 5 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
No. 4 has the wrong Flag, too.
When was the Kirov a carrier
that what i was wondering
Pretty sure that supposed to be the Kiev class carrier instead
Possible they meant just CVs originally and just never changed the title when it went to simply the ten largest warships of any kind. My guess based on my own experience of editing.
This was not carrier only. If you listen to the beginning they even say a battle cruiser made the list. It is about the longest naval ships.
i have to say the bridge of Shandong looks pretty slick.
I too was impressed with the sculpted look.
where do they get these narrators from.admittedly its not a comp voice but really......@6:02 we hear the AC was perrchasted from.........bloody hell :(
Lazy piece this. Confusion between standard and full load displacement. QE is 65,000t but she’s closer to 80,000t fully loaded. Should be an easy no.3 in the list.
No. 10 kirov battlecruiser range is 10000 nmi not 1000 nmi
Don’t forget the HMS HABAKKUK
Should do the displacement as well as the length and width of the ship to get the true size. JUST ASK GOOGLE, 3RD QUEEN ELIZABETH CLASS.
Indian navy
how could the Liaoning be 10000 tonnes heavier than Kuznetsov? they both have the same size and Kuznetsov is more heavily armed including anti ship missiles
Es qie el articulo esta mal, cambia rl tonelaje el kustnezov tiene 45.000 tm y lo colocan en lugar que no le corresponde ,asi como a su gemelo
Its not, Kuznetsov is heavier, ikd why they put Liaoning in front.
I mean Liaoning carries 44 Planes iirc, mean while Kuznecov carries 40, but idk if it makes it up
@@thatlithuanianboi6812 Liaoning carries flopping fish that can barely fly with full tanks and rarely land without killing the pilot.
You said your going by length and the longest one is 1,092 feet in length and the USS enterprise is 1,123 feet in length. As well as number seven should be the Japanese aircraft carrier shinano which was originally a Yamato class battleship but later converted into an aircraft carrier.
Shinano didn't make it to 2020 though... But yeah, she was hands down the largest AND most armored carrier of her time. The latter might've been for nothing though - later carriers dropped any armor entirely.
the best and deadliest aircraft carriers in the world are owned by the United States
Big deal. The USA is the parasite of the world. It is normal that it is the most fed.
You make great content, it seems to be well researched and studied, I love your channel😊
Well... The video is about aircraft carriers, so... Why is there a battlecruiser?
@@val_strax_ good question
0:30 wrong enterprise
War of War ship player???
@Senza Nome no, just that that is the old Enterprise.
Well, it really is easy to get CV-6 confused with CVN-65. Only one number and one letter different. (CVN-80, Scheduled for 2027, looks to be the next USS Enterprise.)
Nice one!
range...unlimited.
And what the heck is 50 years of range LOL.
This site never ceases to amaze me with its blatant hatred for anything British.I think one of our ancestors must have killed their donkeys or stole their chickens?
It doesn't matter if the British made the biggest, widest,longest, or fastest something or other; these clowns will never give the Brits any credit. Don't waste your time posting comments, because that just encourages them?
The reason is because the UK is following the US, on everything. So, you know, America people always want to be first. no matter how best you guys did, you can only behind the US.
UK does not have a very large budget for almost anything
AnXin Liu how are they following the US on everything exactly? They build their own ships, are developing their own 6th gen jet, build their own tanks etc.
What a rubbish vid. The QE CLASS has been rated by the Americans no less as the third biggest carrier outside of America and classed as a supercarrier for her size and tonnage and apart from American Carriers, she can carry more aircraft than any other carrier. Even her hanger deck can hold up to 22 aircraft.
HMS Queen Elizabeth may be able to carry 22 aircraft but we have only got 17 F-35's and the Navy has to share these with the Air force!
'
china / india / ussr russia are the same aircrafts carriers...
ussr russia have old used aircrafts and gave to china / india
Number 10 is not an aircraft carrier