The Real Reason Why US Navy Has 11 Aircraft Carriers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2022
- It's the law! Yes, there is a Federal law mandating that the US Navy should at least have 11 operational aircraft carriers at any given time. But why 11? It's #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
Sudden Impact - WENDEL SCHERER
Danger Caravan - V.V. CAMPOS
Graphite - MARTEN MOSES
Partial Fractions - WENDEL SCHERER
Code Translations - WENDEL SCHERER
No Living Thing - MARTEN MOSES
BALLPOINT - Wax Drip
MARTEN MOSES - City Surround
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
A modern aircraft carrier is so much more than just a runway.
It’ll literally be the Center for group operations, hold sf, have a hospital, house enough troops to start and sustain an attack until backup arrives. They are literally floating military bases.
You never fully grasp it until you’ve been on one, the size is crazy
driving on the coast of san diego i saw the carriers holy shit they are huuge , like a alienship, made my hairs stand up no shit! i cant imagine a whole fleet XD
@@joseruiz4026 my friend was showing a town in australia on gmaps bcs he was planning to go travel there. Jumps into a streetview of one of the seaside park and we got jumpscared by a support carrier that's just docked there. It's fucking huge
It's smaller than commercial cruise liners...
@@elmohead Just because It's smaller doesn't mean It still can't be massive. Over in Mt Pleasent, S.C, there's the USS Yorktown docked as a tourist attraction. A WW2 era carrier. And I can single handedly tell you, just from being there only three times, that It's easily the biggest ship most people will ever be on. It's so big that anywhere but the flight deck itself you'll forget you're even on a ship. It feels like your average, albeit very tightly constructed, building. The Yorktown can very easily be a command center for any sort of operation out at sea just because of it's size alone.
And it was built during WW2! Imagine what modern carriers today can achieve.
@@sashabraus9422 different people have different life experiences I guess. I've been on enough cruises so...
As a brit it feels a little unfair to say the Royal navy was declining in the 1930s. They were still the largest navy in the world untill '41 or '42! but im probably just salty at the sorry state its in these days. great video!
Didn’t Chamberlain reallocate funding to start the build up of the army and also airplane manufacturing?
He gets a bad rap, but he’s Britain’s version of Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
The Royal Navy may have been the largest at the time, but it has still declined, relative to the other navies, significantly from the turn of the century. It could no longer be assured of definitive and supreme victory over the next two competitor, has had been the policy throughout the 19th century.
(And to be blunt, after the situation with _Repulse_ and _Prince of Wales,_ the Japanese pretty much kicked the RN out of the Pacific in any meaningful capacity, and they had their hands full with the Kreigsmarine, essentially proving the point).
@@5674inCincy didn't Chamberlain also bragged about the non-aggression he bargained for with a certain A. Hitler?
Ohh you need to find out how mad many germans are the Bundeswehr isnt even capable to defend our country. The Bundeswehr is being eaten up by woke debates and renaming of everything because everything is bad and old names way before ww2 are also bad so yeah the state of germanys army is worse way worse
No one needs 11 aircraft carriers. America has just been conned by big business owners convincing their government it’s a must.
this reminds me of the British 2 power system where the royal navy was always kept large enough to comfortably defeat the next two navies combined.
That was the mindset that made Britain so uncomfortable when Germany began growing its navy pre world war 1.
@@kylesmith8934 more so from cost then any actual fear of germany being able to beat the british navy. While they hypothetically could kept buying enough ships it wouldve become an extremely large burden
It's also worth mentioning that these super carriers are literally designated as actual sovereign territories. And they also have treaties with other allied countries when berthing at ports and shipyards.
Actually, all Navy ships are extensions of sovereign territory as well as all the agreements in the treaties apply to them also, not just carriers.
100,000 tons of diplomacy
As far as I’m aware, super carriers are prohibited from docking at civilian ports due to them being nuclear powered, this is why the British Queen Elizabeth carrier class went another route for propulsion, it opens up far more ports around the world, 🍻
@@KumaBean That was one reason it's conventional and not nuclear, others were:
- Less Manpower Required: Being a fifth-generation aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth’s two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 gas turbine engine and four Wärtsilä 38 Marine diesel engine gives an added advantage of a quick start and a quick shutdown of power efficiently with the availability of less manpower which is completely impossible in nuclear powered aircraft carriers like US Navy’s Nimitz class ships.
- No Catapults on Queen Elizabeth: The aircraft carriers essentially uses steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft and when it comes to nuclear-powered warships it gets assisted with plenty of heat that is generated within the boilers. But the surprise is, HMS Queen Elizabeth is currently not equipped with any catapults. Catapults are only needed when launching aircraft that are non-STOL and need a significant speed to get airborne. Aircraft with STOL or VTOL capability don’t need the extra boost. An aircraft with STOL capability (which would include VTOL) like the F35B can operate unassisted from a short runway or carrier deck, perhaps with a ski-jump to assist the takeoff.
Though the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) might be fitted on the Queen Elizabeth carriers in a future overhaul.
- Cost Factor: In a pressing BREXIT, Britain was not expected to bear such an expense over a warship, where expected production cost of $4.4 billion overran almost to a double - $7.9 billion.
Land-based reactors usually produce about 1600 MW of electrical power, but marine reactors produce only a few hundred Megawatts. These reactors have to be very small yet powerful for their size to fit in the limited space of a ship. This small size means more expensive materials have to be used that are more resistant to radiation, and the neutron interaction with fissionable material before it escapes into the shielding should be much less. So, highly-enriched weapons-grade Uranium is often used which increases the power density and extends the reactor’s lifetime, but it is more expensive, and it has a greater security risk. You also can’t rely on gravity to drop the control rods into the reactor core to shut down like a land-based one because of the pitching and rolling motion of the ship at sea, so the mechanical system must work flawlessly. This and the extra things like the desalination of seawater to make fresh water for the cooling system, all add cost and make it expensive to build a nuclear-powered ship.
- Limitation of Nuclear Certified Ports in the UK: The size of Queen Elizabeth carriers also limits where they can dock. If the Queen Elizabeth carriers were nuclear powered, their maintenance would have been possible only at the nuclear-certified ports. In the United Kingdom, there are only two such certified ports, Devonport and Faslane.
- Lack of Resources to handle Nuclear Power Technology: Maintenance and decommissioning at the end of their working lives also require bringing a substantial number of nuclear specialists from the US or France at a considerable expense, as they don’t have enough of them in the UK.
In the US, there is a specialized area at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington for the disposal of their nuclear assets and there are large areas in remote locations where the remainders of the reactors can be buried. The UK, on the other hand, is yet to complete the decommissioning of a single nuclear submarine.
Although Britain could build nuclear carriers, all its experience is in submarines, not on surface ships. The only shipyard set up for an assembly of nuclear-powered ships is the Rosyth one which is currently booked up with the decommissioning of old nuclear submarines and building new ones.
@@blancavelasquez9859 love it
It's worth noticing that US, has allies that in case of war can provide +10 smaller carriers, that can effectibly act as escort carries or anti-submarine carriers (Spain, France, UK, Australia, Japan, Italy). Three of those carriers (Queen Elizabeth class, and French Charles de Gaulle) are full combat carriers capable of fighting against others nations supercarriers.
Turkey and Korea, are building new carriers.
Countries like Germany can build carriers if they decide to.
If Indian joins against China, is another two carriers more. Indian is planing a third one.
China with just three carries (maybe 6 counting the Type 75), still has a long way to catch the Atlantic Naval Power.
Russia is strugling with its carrier, maybe if Russia spend a little more of its GDP in defense industry (from 4.5% to 6%), it may put two carriers in service, but no more than that.
Brazi has plans for a brand new aircraft carrier. But Brazil gets along with everybody.
BTW: If the Falkland war demostrated somenthing is that an small aircraft carriers is better that no carrier. Both Argentina and UK had carriers in that war.
Edit 1: Sorry i forgot, US does have 9 small aircraft carrier but due to their limited air wing size speed (20 knots vs 31 knots), makes their role more similar to escort carriers.
Edit 2: Thailand has a cute spanish pocket aircraft carrier, but US refuses to sell them the F35B.
Edit 3: Soviet carriers weren't that bad let's remember they developed the VTOL Yak-41, if A. Kuznetsov was equipped with these it would act just like the Queen Elizabeth class. Russia refused to sell the design to China, after China copied the Su-27.
Edit 4: China has the largest shipbuilding industry in the world, and the largest amount of large drydocks... they might probably catch the number of carriers US has. Idk.
USA fled Vietnam, and Afghanistan. It can't even fight a financial war with China and after losing to much lesser opponents who didn't have a military or money, you want to antagonize and entrench into the sovereignty of a full industrial power like China with 5x the available manpower? Wow talk about cocky.
To call what turkeys building or the 075’s “carriers” is a stretch if you’re leaving out Brazil’s British made LHD.
And a Brazil uses mostly western weapons do I doubt they’ll choose to fight Sweden in NATO after buying so many grippens
I think Germany is barred from aircraft carriers from ww2
@@themanhimself1229 Somewhat? They can build one. They have the shipyards, they have the technology and foreign help from other countries such as UK and France.
They had built Graf Zepellin during ww2, although unfinished due to resources being directed somewhere else to halt the russian forces, and G. Zepellin's design was already sub-par to say the least, but at least it showed that they could build one (even more so with Germany today).
It's just that their only coastline is the baltic sea, and they have a defense policy, the protection provided by NATO. Since the role of a carrier is mostly projection of power, they don't really want to build them (it'll literally break their defence policy).
Germany can’t build any. The constitution doesn’t allow it. Stop talking about stuff you don’t know.
The reason for this is because they can have 11 carriers 168 billion dollars can get you a lot
Will they spend this much in navy in 2022?
@@milkycatmeowmeow9302 in 2022 they got more. 180 billion. Thanks, Biden.
@@milkycatmeowmeow9302 it will most likely increase i have a feeling it will reach 1 trillion by 2035
Dude i think it's 800 billion $
@@slycer876 I mean the entire military had a budget of around 6 trillion dollars last year (?) and so I would wager the navy was a reasonable chunk of this.
Edit: whoever told me this was ill-informed
I was in the Army and deployed multiple times and I’m just going to say this; it always made us a little more secure knowing there was one of our carriers parked off the coast of our AO. 👍🏻
US used to have one carrier (the oldest) serving as a training carrier (CVT) to keep pilots up to date on landing and to give new pilots experience in landing on a carrier deck.
Really gotta appreciate the content this channel puts out - haven't seen many others pack so much information so densely and still make it easy to understand and remember
Thank you. We found this topic to be quite interesting and wanted to share with you guys 😊
@@NotWhatYouThink Besides of not what i think, i want to say thanks 😁
That’s just what I thought.
@@rolo1054 😳
This channel is also about 85% accurate with its topic content. To be fair, the other 15% is usually information that they just may have miss-implied about. I'd say only about 5% of the information they are just wrong on. Which is like, perdect for RUclips lol
Supercarriers are awesome, but we need a new class of escort/jeep carriers.
No. That's achieved much faster with C aircraft.
We already have them, the AAS (Amphibious Assault Ships)
Kind of a waste. Aircraft have a much larger range which is all the escort carriers were meant for. We also have smaller ships that can service helicopters and vtol aircraft
with advent of mass produced VTOL jets (such as harrier or latest F-35)
the amphibious assault ship could be repurpose to carry f-35 and be "escort carrier" if necessary
or borrow japan "not carrier" helicopter destroyer
so no need escort carrier anymore and also whats the point of escort carrier anyway ? since aircraft technology is so advanced the jets even can travel around the world indefinitely with far more efficient air-refueling than landing on escor carrier (in which the purpose of escort carrier back then)
Escort carriers are not needed as a2a refueling is aviable, aircrafts with greater range based on land or supercarriers are more effective at performing asw or sea control making escort carrier not required
As a carrier sailor I can say, You are correct in your assessment that the maintenance and training cycles are why we have so many carriers.
The way the rotation works is this: East coast and West Coast carriers deploy in 6 month cycles, as a West Coast ship is leaving port and cruises to the Persian Gulf (usually the spot) they kind of pass a baton, and then the East Coast ship will leave theater and start heading home. When it gets back to port in Norfolk that ship will go into a planned maintenance period, get out and start work ups for its next deployment. The maintenance periods can be short, or very extensive. These are also done proportionally to ensure the cycle continues uninterrupted.
The only variations of this cycle are the constant forward deployed carrier in Japan, and in case of war (see after 9/11).
true
11 carriers = 4 carriers on station, 4 carrier prepping to relieve those four carriers on station, 1 carrier in long term refit maintenance, 1 carrier in short term refit maintenance, 1 carrier on a training exercise
Currently 2 carriers in long maintenance
There’s a British saying from ww2, when the allies bombed the Germans ducked, when the Germans bombed the allies ducked, when the Americans bombed everyone would duck.
Americans and British are same people just different governments
@@rodrozil6544 uuuhhh....what?.....lol
@@rodrozil6544 If that’s what you think I highly doubt you are either.
@@rodrozil6544 are you serious? America is to this day, a massive mixing pot of every race and culture. The guy is just trying to say America always brings alot of air power to the table because they have too! If America wasn't number one, we'd lose our respect on the world stage!
We need to stop acting like those 9 (soon to be 10 again) amphibious assault ships aren’t highly strategic aircraft carriers in their own right. They can easily carry 30 f-35’s each making them just as powerful as a queen Elizabeth class super carrier
Not quite, the QEs can carry 42 internally without stacking the deck, the AAS can only carry that many when they stack the deck, the Nimitz class can carry 50-60 internally and 100 if they stack the deck the Fords can carry 50 internally and 80-90 if they stack the deck a Queen Elizabeth can carry 72-80 if they stack the deck however they will only carry 24-32 because the Royal Navy is dumb
I wouldn't call QE class as Super carrier, they are 65k tons only. Even the new Chinese carrier, Fujian is heavier than them. And British hurted the potenital collab with Ford because of her ski-jump ramp. Ford class use F-35C model which are for catapults. QE use F-35B models. So QE cannot launch planes of Ford.
@@b-17gflyingfortress6 good point, they’re more of a heavy carrier even if they’re the fourth largest class in the world, the fujian displaces about 8000t more making it the third and the Nimitz and fords are about 35000t heavier than the QE’s making them the two largest ever made
That said in terms of actual internal volume and dimensions they’re similarly sized to the fujians due to the lack of heavy reactors and shielding
@@trisjack82 I think my point still stands. Video creator should have at least mentioned the fact that the us navy has more than just 11 carriers that can launch 5th gen multirole fighters
The US Navy is the submarine service, carriers, and carrier escorts. That's an oversimplification, but not too much of one. A single carrier task force has an air wing superior to all but 6 air forces in the world. 3 of those air forces are US allies. For the other 3, the US Navy has 9 more carriers to call on if needed. The US Navy is well aware of the power and value of these carriers, so they're very well protected. A carrier is a major air base that can maneuver at 45+mph while being escorted by mobile anti-aircraft batteries that can shoot down ballistic missiles.
The power of a US carrier force is impressive. The power of the entire US Navy is staggering.
I always chuckle when people talk about carriers being obsolete. They'll be obsolete the day airports are obsolete...
@@mylesleggette7520 Good one. Most folks talking about things being obsolete don't understand there's a reason they're still bein' used.
Yes, my tax dollars at work. lol
Don't forget amphibious ships with the USMC.
Who are the three enemies? I can think of Russia and China.
*The most powerful military may not be able to defeat the combined militaries of many nations.*
Well, that is true of any nation. One of the reasons the US literally created NATO was so it would not find itself alone in any given conflict.
And "power projection" is to give an enemy or opponent pause BEFORE they start a conflict.
Power Projectioning towards underdeveloped middle eastern countries with T-Pose. c:
@@EternalGaming786 Hardly. But, you can live in your fantasy world all day long. The real world move on quite nicely without your involvement.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Most of NATO isn't prepared for a major war. Just look at how little help they're giving Ukraine.
Also, the NATO packed (with the major NATO countries) if 1 of us(them) is attacked, by "law" we all must respond in such a way as if we ourselves were attacked/invaded. Russia can maybe muster up China and Iran and North Korea. Ssssoooo 4 vs 10 at minimum. Lol. Or 4 vs 15 and the 15 at 90% odds of 15 happening. Lol. I think we're all fine....well.....not those 4 countries lol.
@@djinn666 *Let's be honest with ourselves. Most of NATO isn't prepared for a major war. Just look at how little help they're giving Ukraine.*
Irrelevant. Ukraine is doing incredibly well against Russia without help from NATO.
"Purchased the Philippines from Spain"
That’s one way to say it, yes 😂🤦♂️
Well, they did! How would you say it?
@@NotWhatYouThink won a war and forced them to sell it. Which the US still did pay $20 million so its not like we straight up took it.
@@NotWhatYouThink "The Treaty of Paris ended the Spanish-American War, and forced Spain to cede the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States. In return, the United States paid Spain $20 million for the Philippines. President William McKinley was then faced with the decision of what to do with the Philippines." Please, be truthful and dont act like the US bought them from Walmart.
@@NotWhatYouThink Many Filipinos objected rather strongly to that arrangement, forcing the US to commit to landing tens of thousands of troops because they were attempting to declare independence outside of treaty limitations - of course, nobody had asked the Philippines for their opinion in the first place. This resulted in a messy and often brutal counter-insurgency campaign by the US to root out rebels, pirates, and cannibal tribes on the islands, definitely involving its fair share of atrocities. The following peace was better, with the enforcement of something resembling conventional law and order under a new local police force, and genuine improvement to their infrastructure, healthcare system, etc. in preparation for granting their independence in a few decades, but these long-term independence plans were temporarily derailed by WW2.
At the turn of the 20th Century, the US, as a rising power, just had to go and do the colony-on-the-other-side-of-the-world thing after knocking Spain off its perch. However, while defeating Spain went well, the resulting mess in the Philippines created considerable anti-war and isolationist sentiment back home.
As a side-note, since they were no longer running the place, the US also twisted the arm of the Catholic Church into selling considerable amounts of its land on the islands for well below the asking price, which was then leased to local peasants or sold.
@@NotWhatYouThink Conquered would be a better word for it. We paid the Spanish so they could save face.
Because of the threat assessment, the number of global or regional conflicts to be fought at any one time and the number of carriers that will be in port for refit/refuelling.
No great mystery really, how those parameters were established and whether they are still relevant in the modern and increasingly cyber world are far more interesting questions.
If more people read this we could get a really interesting conversation going, though most people don't care to do a whole lot of research after their boredom sets in. Thank you 🙏
Those threats are overblown. Just like when aircraft was introduced, everybody thought you didnt need people fighting it out. It can be argued that until Desert storm, airpower didn't win you a war. You can have complete air superiority and still lose.
Same thing happened when cruise missiles were introduced, everybody thought that days of aircrafts were numbered.
To this day, you need boots on the ground if you need to capture and hold something.
@@mignik01 Name one example of having complete air superiority and adequate ground forces and support troops but a military still losing to an enemy with a less-than or equal ground force!
@@mignik01 Nobody with credit to their name has ever said that ground troops would become obsolete after the creation of attack and support aircraft. Cruise missiles were designed for specific target destruction.
@@michaelsunsetavelivin5199 I don't think that's what I said. I said having air superiority alone didn't win you a war.
Logistics, protecting trade. Economic projection.
I wonder how big the merchant marine fleet is. Is it still even around? I don't hear anything about it. You should do a video on them.
Great video.
The Merchant Marine is still around, but floats as an 'on loan' force for the U.N. so that the ideas of Economic Zones and Maritime Zones aren't a problem. It allows them to go _anywhere._ The Coast Guard has taken over all waters within the U.S. Economic Zone, and the range of the 3 active Battle Groups is never more than a few days away from any point of anywhere on the oceans. That rather diminished our need to retain control of the Merchant Marine. We CAN recall all ships of the Merchant Marine at any time that we choose, and all captains of these ships are only from solid allied nations. _(UK, Canada, France, etc.)_
@@thalastianjorus Makes me want to look into everything. I just know I should've followed my grandpas advice up. Instead I threw my life away.
It's still around, glad you menttioned it....
@@dianapennepacker6854 You've still got a good life...if you have personal electronics to be able to comment on a YT video. Most of the world doesn't/can't b/c they lack wealth for the devices and also the digital infrastructure. Though you may not be where you "could" have been, count your blessings for where you are. Peace....
@@Ezees23 Thank you but I'm actually dying. Liver damage.
Don't waste your life mate an wish ya the best
Experience e you can't get anywhere else! One of the best short docs summarising, with exceptional clarity, US Naval Doctrine as it's evolved from WW2 to today. Well done!
Thank you, and glad you enjoyed it!
11 carriers and 9 wings each carrier... i think I know the hidden answer.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
I don't know much about new ships. but if you played War thunder then you know these famous words: "ATTACK THE D POINT!"
returning to base
I can already hear that one guy saying "negative!"
"Thank you very much"
That's what they told me in self defense. I thought it was cheating.
YOU GOT A HOLE IN THE LEFT WING!
This is all true, but it's missing a huge aspect beyond military interests, and an arguably more important interest - world economy.
Most people don't realize that America's Navy is the glue which holds the global trade together. True, America benefits greatly from this stability, so it's not altogether altruistic... but American tax payers are subsidizing the idea that there could even be such a thing as "open water is neutral territory." It's a wonder that it's worked for so long, since military-secured power usually has a short shelf life. But since the result of that power is that "nobody owns it", I suppose it's easier to stomach from competing interests.
>but American tax payers are subsidizing the idea that there could even be such a thing as "open water is neutral territory."
I'm thinking of various US companies and their respective billionaires that are making record profits but getting lots of tax writeoffs. Yet their business benefits from US Navy keeping the sea lanes open for them to transport cheap crap from China.
Truly, this may be America’s greatest achievement. It has laid the groundwork for the most significant economic, social, cultural, and technological advancements in human history.
Stop using facts that will upset biased people lol
@@whynot-tomorrow_1945 The greatest achievement of the US is probably the slave like conditions that they put a lot of US citizens in and actually make it acceptable by the same citizens. Hearing things like: "I shouldn't earn more as I don't have a higher education", when they barely can survive is just... sad.
Man do I love these super interesting and informative video's. Keep up this great work man
From what i see for 2045, US Navy fleet calls for this,
12 Nuclear aircraft carrier
12 Ballistic missile submarines
66 attack submarines
96 destroyers
56 frigates
31 large amphibious ships
18 light amphibious ships
82 logistics and auxiliary ships
And 150 unmanned surface and underwater vessels
*100 destroyers most likely. I doubt they would stray 4 away from a perfect number.
Also you missing lots of those ships that are used for civilian and military purposes. I forgot what their called. They make up like half our total navy.
No Cruisers?
@@Gweinman the envisioned DDG(X) will have roughly same displacement as cruisers, around 10-12000 tonnes
Double all numbers, quadruple logistics ships
The US entered WWII under equipped except for its navy, though there were many shortcomings. Because of its industrial capacity and the mainland being untouched by the enemy, it was able to build for itself and its allies. (A bit of luck as well. Its foremost battleship gunnery advocate, Willis Lee, recommended in May '39 to shift resources from battleships and battlecruisers to carriers. The US laid down its last Yorktown-class carrier in Sep '39 and ordered its Essex-class carriers in 1940. Lee's eyesight was so poor that he shouldn't have been in the navy, but he figured how to cheat the eye tests.) In WWIII, the US won't have that luxury. Not only does it no longer have the industrial capacity and the safety of two oceans, build times are too long - the Ford took about 8 years from being laid down to commissioning. WWIII will be fought largely with what a nation has in active service on day one of the war plus what's mothballed.
i disagree. i very strongly disagree
wwlll is being fought right now and its a battle of propaganda and economics, one nation will collapse or surrender before even firing a single shot.
Considering the US has another 10 carriers in the works since 2017, I think the US has the industrial capacity... 2 of them are already finished in fact.
There won't be a WW3: it'd be too expensive for everyone involved. Rather, wars will be fought through computers, stock exchanges and space stations. We don't need such a large conventional military anymore, especially since half the wars we've fought have been massive conventional failures (Afghan, Iraq 2, Vietnam)
Well during wartime manufacturing military needs becomes a lot quicker.
You say the US won't have that luxury, but they also no longer have that shortcoming. There is no military in the world that can match the United States military in any of it's capacities. If WW3 is fought with what is currently in service then the US will win, and if it relies on what is currently in service and what can be produced the US will win anyways.
But none of that really matters because nuclear powers should never shoot at each other. The only countries that could ever hope to oppose the US have nukes and thus a conflict with them could be world ending and should be avoided at all costs.
Outstanding knowledge! Thank you looking forward to more!
The Navy’s Maritime Strategy, formally introduced in the early 1980s, called for carriers to strike an assertive, forward-based stance in key waters around the globe the number was 15-carrier force was the minimum
The Reagan Doctrine
US carriers is the glue that holds global trade together and possible.
11 may be the minimum requirement... but we actually have 19 of them; and they don't travel alone. Every carrier has an entire Strike Group that travels with them.
yep the landing carriers are capable of launching aircraft as well tho they are mostly used for landing troops and only a few fighters are kept on board
A single poseidon can obliterate that, unless you have very good countermeasure, sending entire fleet in a pack is not a good idea.
I think the 11 is the Super-Carriers, plus 8 regular. I heard in some reports that some carrier strike groups can match entire navies.
At this point it's illegal for any self-respecting navies to send their carrier, whatever type it is, to do a mission alone
The LHDs are not aircraft carriers, they only support helicopter and amphibious operations. This is the same comment former USAF Chief of Staff General Merril McPeak mentioned one time in a Pentagon meeting in the early '90s and was laughed at by all the other services chiefs for his ignorance.
You're correct thought about the Strike Group and before carriers, battleships were similarly organized in WWII before they were relegated to part of a carrier battlegroup.
I was just thinking about this, i never knew NWYT would read minds.
😎
@@NotWhatYouThink 🙂
5:54 (“San Juan”) Great points. I visited the Nimitz 50 years ago!
There may be only a dozen super carriers, but we have a lot of pocket carriers, too, that house F-35Bs and helos. There are also a number of amphibious assault ships that can support the same.
The Imperial Star Destroyer of the modern era!
Everything perfect and all but the little "joke" with 12+1 got me completely
I was in San Diego when the Nimitz came in last Feb. Quite a sight.
2:00
thank you, my 36 years on earth finally feels complete.
Are we just going to ignore how bread has been disparaged? Good bread doesn't need butter at all.
🤓
Yes, we are. You are correct that good bread needs no butter. But even the best bread is better WITH butter.😁 And bacon. Ummmmm now I'm hungry.
Currently the US has only ordered 10 Ford-class CVN which it the same number as the previous Nimtz-class supercarriers when they where built between 1975-2009 although there are plans to increase them the number of the Ford-class to 11-12 which remains to be seen, and alternatives are being discuss the US Goverment could reduced the minimum number from 11 to 10 CVNs. However the Nimtz or Ford-class are not the only ships capable of handling fix-wing fighters! The America-class amphibious assault ship LHA and older Wasp-class LHD are capable of using the STOVL F-35B which allied navies like the Royal Navy, Italian are using for there own carriers and in the future Japan and South Korea with there own ships like the Izumo-class DDH and CVX Porgram for the ROKN. This could be the inspiration for the USN to explored an alternative of using there LHA or LHD as "Lightning Carrier" with 20 F-35B per ship instead of 6-10 previously with the AV-8B+ Harrier II. If accepted it could lead to the development of a dedicated Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL) which is probably gonna be based on the latest version of the America-class LHA USS Bougainville (LHA-8) which could be deployed on low-end opertion freeing the CVN for higher-end operations and can also be forward-deployed in allied nations such as Japan or Australia with less risked to the larger flat tops. Another alternative solution could de a Mother ship dedicated to Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) with supporting UAV, USB and UUV with minimal crew and could be forward-deployed of a Carrier Strike Group to 2nd tier allies in South East Asia or the Middle East. Though in the end only time will if the USN will have there 12 CVN or its reduced to 10 with LHA and Mother ships.
MORE !!!!!!! NOT LESS!!!!!!!!!!! TO PREVENT WARS!!!!!! FREE and STRONG!!!!!! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS TRUTH and LOVE and PEACE
🤣 I always appreciate your humor Brother... "kinda like how bread is just a vehicle for delivering butter" Love it!
For every one US aircraft carrier there must be an armada of at least 6 surface ship and a classified number of submarines below the surface. A carrier never travels alone!😊👍
...Okay, but what if... Multiple carriers in a battlegroup?
They always stay far apart from each other. Each other's planes would get in the way also.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle That happens but usually not outside wartime
@@techietisdead Fair enough. That, and like the previous guy said 9 months ago... Best to keep them far apart. Not only for the sake of planes, but also to avoid any concentrated efforts wiping them all out at once.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle Well, ig yea the stuff I was mentioning are battlegroups in the ww2 and stuff, where concentratted fire on that level wasnt possible
informative as usual
"so how many super carriers do you want?"
America: yes
Amazing Video as always keep it up 👍 😄😄
Thanks for the explanation about how bread is just a means of holding butter
Say a war with China breaks out and or any other nation and US is equally matched. How carriers would be deployed then? Like how ww2 saw battles between multiple carriers, but they also had less capability per carrier than now. So realistically how many would operate together in a super serious war?
Probably 3,4
If its solely against 1 country then it depends on their geography. If its China then i suspect 2 will stay by Taiwan while another 3 maybe 4 spread along the mainland coast. This would only be half of our carrier force while the other half can be on standby around other parts of the globe, most likely the Bering Sea and Indian and Arctic Oceans. India is a wildcard nowadays having close ties to both Russia and the US and a war with China would inevitably bring Russia into the fold. Europe can maintain its own air defence whil
Well in the Pacific, there's one main carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan with the 7th Fleet. But it's also joined with fleets from other nations and an extra USN carrier, the USS Carl Vinson that joined the 7th Fleet. UK has sent the HMS Queen Elizabeth with F-35s and Japan has a helicopter destroyer. There's also air bases around that region. Since China has recently been pushing towards Taiwan, the US sent additional F-22s and F-35s from Alaska to South Korea and Japan.
But to even think another nation is equally match on the seas, is far from reality. China or Russia (not going great for them against Ukraine) has a better chance of equally matching ground troops than war ships. The experience and technology is far greater than our rivals. Facts, China can't launch J-15 ( Russian Su-33 clone) on full payload because their reversed engineered engines are too weak. They can only take off from the carrier with half the armaments and fuel. And it's not just the US, it's her Allies that are highly capable of blue water conflicts. Big advantage China has is they can fire land based missiles at the carriers. Sinking a carrier with 5000 sailors on board would bring massive destruction to anyone responsible. Lets just hope we never have to go to war. With a lot of firepower and military spending, it helps prevent wars.
Depends on the severity. If this is another WW2, Korean, or Vietnam, then likely 3-6 temporarily, and 4 long term. China cannot compete with the United States under such a circumstance. However, if the war starts when the United States is already diverting assets to another war, then it likely will be a draw. The United States Navy has global responsibilities, that if necessary, can be recinded or transferred to allied control. This would free assets up from other duties and put them to the war effort. China realistically could support one or two carriers at sea at once. This greatly limits their capabilities. However, just like ww2, nations like the UK would almost certainly be involved. So for the US long term, 4-5, however including allies, 5-6. If the United States uses its smaller carriers alongside its larger, then a total of 8-9, and including allies, 12-15. In wartime, nations are able to field as much as possible. Think of the damaged USS Yorktown having a rushed repair job to be sent to battle at Midway.
@@DroneStrike1776 america would seize Chinese cargo ships …
I remember reading some report where US Mil has thought of and planned for the war scenario where it is the whole world vs them. Basically Planners are confident they would come out on top despite heavy loses. But am sure that plan needs to evolve every so often.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket I just remember the report saying how the USMil would instantly and with heavy force move to take invade arab states (where they have a LOT of bases) and dismantle and dominate the oil supply chain, and in parallel USMIl would systematically destroy every other nation’s oil reserves and dominate the oceans disrupting food supply chains. nothing to do with protecting territory. American culture and the population can and will die in the scenario, but the world will go with them pretty easily and basically everyone else will never recover afterwards without kow towing to the new oil and sea masters who just lost most of their wives, children and friends.
Yeah I read something on that years ago. Since our neighbors can get it pretty quick and effective. Everyone else has to cross oceans to get to us Aside from South and Central America that’s if we don’t make Mexico a fallout zone that would stop any land crossings.
Haha, Hitler was once confident.
No weapon USA has is specific to them.
That is why the US has undercover agents at every country that has purchased firearms from the US
excellent video as always friend
I've advocated for the US Navy to add another 50 destroyers. 10 to be based in the Black Sea and the other 40 to be stationed in the Indio Pacific. Japan, Philippines, Australia. The additional 40 for this region means that at least 13 additional destroyers will be deployed in this area at all times. And when needed another 13-18 can have deployments extended. giving the region a total additional deployment of 26-31 destroyers. That is a massive amount of very flexible power.
I like social media, when it CAN teach things.
I think the US doctorine of being able to fight 2 wars simultaneously also has it's roots in the British 1889 Naval Defence Act that obliged the Royal Navy to have more ships than the next 2 largest navies combined.
Obviously, the USN has been the most potent navy since about 1943. The power it was able to throw at Japan by the end of WW2 was - well - just awesome!
Glad we're on the same side..
Not quite. It's more that we have two oceans and the Panama canal is such an obvious pinch point. Better to have carriers on both sides at same time and a third to actually attack with and then enough back ups to replace them since a build takes years.
Really glad you pointed out that the threat of cyber attacks is greater than any other...
You learn something new on RUclips every day
As a German in the nation of bread I have to insist that a bread is not just a vehicle to delivering butter.
Bread is a flavored art and with its variance a multi purpose use is ensured. A bread defines the breakfast, dinner and prepares as appetizer the boom of the lunch 😅
So the bread makes the day and without bread there is nothing to carry. Just eating fruits for breakfast don't make you satisfied throughout the day.
Greetings from Germany 😊
Although 2 Ford-class have been completed and 11 Nimitz are in service. Ford is in service still, and JFK is fitting out currently. So it’s about to be 12
A carrier is a moving air force base. It has a 500 mile visibility radius (as opposed to 5 miles at most for the majority of ships), and can strike with pinpoint accuracy at any target in that range, and even multiple targets at once.
The day carriers become obsolete is the day navies in general become obsolete (at least in a planetary context).
Air Force bases don't sink.
-USAF Veteran
@@wolfshanze5980 But cant move either ..🤣🤣 those 11 carriers are mobile sinkable airbases...
О каком радиусе в 500 миль вы говорите в эпоху спутников и крылатых ракет. Вас засекут спутником. Хуже того. Вас постоянно ими отслеживают. Русские подлодки находятся на боевом дежурстве даже в собственном порту. Настолько далеко летят их ракеты, что даже выходить из порта не нужно, чтобы достать полмира. Авианосные группы угроза только для туземных мелких держав, которые могут мешать судоходству или перекрывать проливы или каналы. Крейсер Москва был неплох. Пару ракет с берега и здравствуй дно. Если вы думаете, что авианосцы лучше, представьте, что будет когда боеголовки таких ракет будут еще и термоядерные. Авианосцами угрожают слабым странам, что разбомбят их безнаказанно.
@@swampfolk2526 look at the Russian military now. You really think the navy is any better? Do you honestly expect me to believe that Russian missiles can even reach a carrier strike group before it’s detected and shot down?
@@swampfolk2526 - It’s hilarious that you think ACs are somehow useless when your country can’t even keep the single one they have operational. Also, when you keep having to play the nuke card, it gives away the fact that your actual military literally can’t do a single thing right.
Thanks for sharing. 😉👌🏻
It’s similar to how the UK once had an informal navy policy of outnumbering the 2 next largest naval powers
It wasn't "informal"... Great Britain had a mandated policy of having the same number of Capital Ships as the next two biggest powers combined for quite some time.
There was a federal law that mandated that one B-52 bomber must be airborne and armed with nuclear weapons at ALL TIMES
Operation Chrome Dome.
Was deprecated in 1968 mainly because of the many accidents with B-52s that occured, in one of which the nuclear bomb's 3 out of 4 failsafe devices to prevent accidental detonation failed and in another case the nuclear core of the bomb went missing in Europe.
That policy is almost 60 years out-of-date, the USAF hasn't done that in decades.
A video mentioning it about this law is very interesting
If you watch military comparison videos, most often they have a number over 20. That's because the US is one of few navies that have 2 types of carriers. Super Carriers, and Helicopter Carriers, those are the long skinny carriers that well, only have helicopters on them or VTOL aircraft like the Osprey or British Harriers. Those helo carriers are also, from what a friend in the navy told me, are almost entirely operated by the United States Marine Corps
LHD
Yes, LHD thank you. My brain had a moment and couldn't remember the name of it
Yes, these are not carriers but amphibious assault ships. They carry air support for the landings, as well as a dry well (dock) for launching landing craft and hovercraft. That's why they are operated by the Marines.
It is true that at a pinch they can perform air strike and other roles but that is not what they are built for. Quite a lot of other countries have them too.
I’d love to see a video about the 21 Gun Salute specifically the significance of why 21 is the chosen number
This comes from a 16th-century custom where warships approaching a foreign port would have to fire their cannons while still some distance away, so that they may enter with their guns provably discharged. It takes a long time to reload a cannon, so ships would do this show that they didn't have hostile intentions. At the time the standard number of guns on British vessels was 7, and the rule was that the fort's cannons would respond in turn with 3 shots to each of the 7 fired by the ship - hence 21. This became a salute later on, but the 21-gun salute is not the only one in use, there's also at least 17 and 19. Even numbers of shots are usually reserved to mark a death.
@@desmond-hawkins ahh that’s pretty cool, thanks for the reply :)
3 is enough to fight two wars simultaneously? In this era of hypersonic missiles with tactical nuclear load, not bloody likely.
I've served on 2 supercarriers...
We need 15 to do good scheduling of deployments, training work-ups, home port maintenance time and major overhaul/drydock maintenance. Plus having a couple of backups in case one hits a rock like Enterprise did, ripping open the hull and being dangerously close to rolling over.
Excellent... Admiral?
Very Interesting. Thank you
That’s why the US is a lone superpower: by having super carriers spread out in the world’s seas and oceans, nothing is beyond the reach of USA.
Especially since the Air Force can hit targets long before the Navy gets its ships there.
7:56
unless you UK
when your ships break
your carriers just sail alone
best idea ever right?
Another great video. Packed with great content, easy to understand and with the usual sexy voice!
Yes, a voice almost good to be a marriage officiant 😜
Great work Thank you
To maintain global hegemon? A minimum number of aircraft carrier per zones in the world's seas and oceans makes you a powerful sea power thus making "Pax Americana" still possible
Love fridays
The origin of the current two-theater requirement was formalized around `1980. Although presented as essential for US defense superiority, it's primary objective was to keep the companies that advance military technology and provide military equipment making money, even in peacetime. I know. I was there when the reasons were discussed and the decisions were made.
Excellent and Outstanding!!!
Usually, in history, a country will have invaded its enemies long before it builds up this much of a military advantage. But with nukes in the equation, the US didn’t invade its main foes, but it did keep preparing for war. This is the result.
Power projection ALWAYS requires a physical presence. Boots on the ground. Ships on the water. Planes in the sky.
But in the end, it always ends up with the infantry. Boots on the ground.
You just made me think way too much about bread and butter at 2:00
"Why not just make 10 Aircraft Carriers louder?"
"But these Aircraft Carries go to 11..."
100% agree with a 13 carrier navy.
If didnt know the US had eleven supercarriers i bet you though he meant they could only have 9 or less
It is also important to mention the either 6 or 8 LHAs operated by the Navy and Marines. These boats are carrying more aircraft now.
Growth in Military personnel is also covering cyber threats, US military is not ignoring that, but also means different type of soldiers since there is not a whole lot of current roles that would fit
We need more "woke" soldiers. NOT. lol
We in Britain should have also have the same law, not just for Aircraft Carriers but every bit of MoD Aircraft tanks, ships and personnel. We should have four carriers and the same number of ships and aircraft as per 1982 levels!
Did you calculate that and then looked on GDP, Brexit and the global economy shrinking. Yup those numbers say no. Especially with the HMS Prince of Wales suffering an engine failure, but still great carriers with an interesting design.
@@maxmeesters5649 Ah the 'fiat' currency and 'faux' crisis! I shall say no more!
@@billmmckelvie5188 Diggah sprich deutsch hahaha. Well it's your opinion and that's fine. I just wanted to say that your ideas for the Royal Navy are kinda unrealistic in my opinion.
@@maxmeesters5649 Yeah right, let's compare 1970 - 1980s Britain to now. We had just come out of a miner's strike and worked a 3 day week, used candles to light our homes due to electricity blackouts! The country was in a bad shape back then. We had a larger Armed Forces back then, which I was glad to join in 1976 to 1985! Tschus!
The US Navy already has more than 10 aircraft carriers. 10 Nimitz class and 1 Ford. A 2nd Ford is pier-side being fitted out and a 3rd (Enterprise) is under construction.
Someone didn’t watch the video before commenting
@@joshuam20 So the title was click-bait then. Shocker.
"O'h"
(Just a little Arts&Crafts Carrier building maintenance game)...
"We know who you are"
Always wondered who narrates these , great content tho!
Thanks Joseph. The narrator’s identity is classified 😅
@@NotWhatYouThink fair enough lol
Long live US Navy
With the proliferation of missiles one tends to feel that the massive Aircraft carriers have become vulnerable.....for example the Chinese anti ship missile DF 21D has a range of 1300 Km and was developed in 2010 itself... this was the first ever anti ship missile and its re entry speed is Mach 10.....China must have progressed much more by now....so these super carriers are vulnerable....unless they develop systems to counter these missiles....
Although our government will never tell anyone, most of our escort ships are equipped with laser weaponry. Some of our destroyers are equipped with hypersonic missiles as well.
@@chrisdean6700 That would be known only in combat...till that time we cannot believe in presumptions....
You are correct, right now they are nothing but sitting ducks for a DF21D.....coupled now with the sharing of Hypersonic Tech from Russia, these "Carrier Killers" will now be more a formidable threat to the Carriers. The swarming tactic being employed by Russia on UAF to overwhelm their ABM system shows the challenges that will be facing.
At approx. $25M-$35M a pop of this DF21 with an estimated 200-300 already in their inventory, it will be prudent to just stock up with these missiles than building a carrier at around $13B-$14B price tag, not including the planes, munitions, escort vessels, etc...
@@Dv8er73 Neutralizing radar and launching sites of these anti-ship missiles with stealth aircrafts will be first step in the conflict...
"Bread is just a vehicle for delivering butter" is akin to my saying that "Shrimp is how I get cocktail sauce into my mouth."
421 construct! Fight 4 regional wars, 2 major theater of operations ie WW2, 1 Major knock out war! 3 set of assets on rotational basis. Deploy,train, maintenance
Because 11 is better than 10.
What about 12?
@@O5o787 12 is even better than 11.
Another good video mate. Iraq and Afghan wars are roughly in the same region though so maybe not the best example to use for the points you made in the first half.
Good point 👍🏼
In the 1980s Reagan added the 4 Iowa Battleships to have 4 more groups
Bread is amazing with or without butter...
Power projection and aircraft carriers being vulnerable is why America made the F-35. In any future conflict for the next 30 years we can basically make any ship an aircraft carrier. Oil tankers, cargo ships or any barge can basically be used as a way for these planes to take off, bomb its target, land, refuel and be ready for its next launch.
The reason this is so valuable is because hypersonic missiles or any other attack on American carriers can be made irrelevant if the F-35 can take off from any naval platform without having a long runway to land.
In a theoretical peak conflict against China. America can produce 10,000 F-35s and as a result can have thousands of random ships dotted throughout the pacific and South China Sea and use that to launch any attacks it wants.
No matter how many attempts at successful attacks the Chinese have on our ships. It will never be enough to stop the continuous launching of air attacks on Chinese targets.
This is the exact same reason why the spaceX self landing rocket is so significant to American military strategy. We can land these rockets on a barge in the middle of the ocean. Arm it with any missiles we want, launch our attack and have that same rocket land again on a random barge and be ready to refuel, re arm and launch another attack.
Russia and China are terrified of this massive unbalance because it means that America can project its power at any corner of the globe with a level of technology that the Chinese and Russians still have 20-40 years to finally catch up to. Self landing rockets, 5th generation vertical landing warplanes took us trillions of dollars and decades to finally master and this advantage will be very difficult for Russia and China to catch up to.
The US can also make 50-100 Tomahawk Missiles for the same cost of a single hypersonic missile China and Russia makes.
While all of that is pretty cool, it would be cooler if America wasn't a shit country. America is also struggling to get people to join the military recently.
Lmao You say this as an American, Propaganda is very effective on yoi
@@MrOiram46 lmao Weapon and vehicle manufacturers screw the US on prices, They charge 100 for what russia could make for 5
There is not 750 US Military Bases outside of the US. There is, 750 US Military "facilities" outside the US. Facilities is so different than a, Military base. Lol. Also, in theory, its a good average to say that a 1/3 of the entire Military vehicles/vessels/aircraft are immediately deployable. Not just the aircraft carriers.
The best way to demonstrate why we need eleven aircraft carriers is to look at a recent typical day in the Navy. On that day, two carriers were deployed to the Middle East. Another carrier was under way to relieve one of those deployed carriers. Two carriers were underway near the coast of the United States conducting training. One carrier had just returned from deployment and was in a post-cruise stand-down period. Two were in-port for light maintenance and were conducting shore-based training events. Two were in various stages of a heavy maintenance period, and one was in a Refueling Complex Over-Haul (RCOH) period. So let’s add it up -- two deployed, one on its way, two underway for training, one in post deployment stand-down, two in-port for light maintenance/training, two in heavy maintenance and one in RCOH equals eleven total aircraft carriers.
So basically what you are telling me is that they have to be able to bully everyone at once without anyone being able to put up resistance
Basically a very similar concept that Britain adopted when the Royal Navy was the preeminent force in the world. HM government insisted that it should be larger than the next two largest navies combined. This was later reduced to equal terms.
China's rapid rise, Europe's reemergence + very limited Russian power, India's rapid rise in the Indian Ocean, already strong Israel + ME states...all the deployable US carriers + F-35 carriers might actually end up concentrating on the Pacific to deal w/ China's sheer numbers, growing tech level & still growing numbers
Hence Obama’s “Pivot to Asia.” But of course, since Obama signed the order, Trump scrapped it
Exactly, the US doesn’t need to focus on the European theatre, this is not the mighty Soviet Union anymore, it’s the paper bear Russian Federation, the European allies would easily hold and destroy Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia would be powerful allies for the US to have against any wild card Iran in this situation, and that means the US, South Korea, Japan, Republic of China, India (maybe), Philippines, and Australia can turn their focus on the Chinese juggernaut
@@thiccchungo1041 to add, India is sure. They'll take China at the rear, & perhaps force one of China's carriers to go to Indian waters on a suicide mission if China finally decides to invade Taiwan
Would easily destroy Russia? The last time I checked, EU was and still is facing price inflation and energy crisis and potential mayhem as winter is coming soon just because Russia slows down gas export, lol. Not to mention Russia has enough nukes to destroy EU multiple times over and over.
@@windwindy5356 last time I checked Russia can’t produce anymore military hardware because it’s completely reliant on foreign components, is now facing sanctions from some of the strongest economies in the world right now, and is still getting walloped by Ukraine who is 1/33rd their size and is fighting them with equipment the Russians made in the 80s, not to mention it’s a corrupt autocracy that’s on the verge of mayhem as they make the same mistakes that led to the 1917 revolution
Do you imagine being on a deck and just standing waiting for the ship to dock. That job must suck.
Aaa yoo...did u get some of that clips from movies?
Cuz I want the name of the movie pls!!