A common theory for a perfect weapon system are incredibly large, nearly indestructible, and absolutely devastating, super tanks. The idea for these weapon systems can be found in things like the anime "Heavy Object", the board game "Ogre", and the "Bolo" book series. The idea is that the tank, is capable of taking insane amounts of damage, a.k.a. nuclear weapons won't be able to destroy the platform unless they are deployed while using traditional tactics, such as bombing campaigns. And since the vehicle is so large it can be fitred with the large reactors needed to power next generation weapon systems like lasers, railguns, coilguns, and plasma cannons. They are also loaded to the brim with sensor equipment, able to detect long range threats and intercept them before they ever get near the platform, and use railguns and other kinetic weapons with such range and accuracy that they might as well be missile launchers. They idea does have flaws, and issues, and the technology is decades, if not centuries away, but it could be useful.
@the_.terrible
5 жыл бұрын
Iron Man suit😐
@thundergeneratorgaming8741
5 жыл бұрын
Sharks with Laser Beams Attached to their Frickin Heads!
@katamine2
5 жыл бұрын
Reddit
@CharliMorganMusic
5 жыл бұрын
A swarm of 5,000 × $100 drones with half a kilo of C4.
@doitsuland2003
4 жыл бұрын
The thumbnail be like: Yes, the most technologically advanced carrier we will have will be equipped with a ski jump and a wooden flight deck
@buff9267
4 жыл бұрын
Gaijilla and some paper tubes and some blue LEDs
@BeKindToBirds
4 жыл бұрын
@Octopus lower tech carriers by poorer countries with much less projection power
@FREEDOMDEVIN
4 жыл бұрын
This is a Russia based page thi
@FREEDOMDEVIN
4 жыл бұрын
Tho**
@danwimberly1450
4 жыл бұрын
Actually the ramp cuts your fuel load by like 1/2 & the ordinance load by 2/3. The EMALS catapult(& steam) makes it so the plane has a full load of both.
@luvee659
5 жыл бұрын
China: we're aiming to make aircraft carriers obsolete Also China: *Start investing heavily into aircraft carriers*
@davidhobbs5679
5 жыл бұрын
That because there is still one thing the aircraft do that missile ships can't, reconnaissance. Honestly super carriers are likely going to be obsolete in a war. The thing that made them better was cost to effect ratio. That ratio now doesn't favour them. Most likely it will be small jump carriers and cruiser/destroyer sized vessels that will be the major surface combatants, though it's gonna take a new war to fully push them off, because they still have use as a detterrent and to provide air support in uncontested waters.
@newsionl6092
5 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carrier obsolete is because it can't fight against countries like America Russia China, it will be easily destroyed. Built aircraft carrier is to fight low-tech country such as India and Iraq, at low cost. So they are not contradictory, especially in the case of America Russia China almost impossible war.
@Le-eu4bf
5 жыл бұрын
@@newsionl6092 well I think that the carriers will still be useful to support naval invasions and such. Especially through the South China sea
@evilloli429
5 жыл бұрын
@@newsionl6092 you're right. Aircraft carriers maybe obsolete against a superpower like the US, China and Russia., But there's like a hundred countries those Aircraft Carriers can easily wreck havoc to
@newsionl6092
5 жыл бұрын
@@evilloli429 Yes, this is the role of the aircraft carrier.This is why China did not build carrier before, because at that time its opponent was the United States.Also this is why China building the carrier now, because China wants to deter the small countries on its new sea route.
@TheLiamster
5 жыл бұрын
Someone should build an aircraft carrier carrier.
@mikkokivisto4414
5 жыл бұрын
But who is going to carry the carrier that's carrying a carrier?
"Should we give up on aircraft carriers and invest in long range ballistics instead?" "NO, GIVE IT A FORCE FIELD SHIELD AND PUT LASERS ON IT"
@skybattler2624
4 жыл бұрын
We already have long range ballistics... We call those ICBMs with MiRV
@cleopatravii2385
4 жыл бұрын
ninny65 Why? We need control over seas and not just be another Korea who does nothing but threat. Edit: Do you want war? Ballistic missiles are used only to threat... no one will use them anyway.
@the_phoenix__08
4 жыл бұрын
👍👍👍
@Yaobi-San
4 жыл бұрын
Wait 200 years you got that but its useless cuz all nations are friends
@BeKindToBirds
4 жыл бұрын
Guess what, the us has both. No one else can afford or operate supercarriers and the rest of their fleet. We can.
@jackraider9113
5 жыл бұрын
No one : Infographic show : it's time to harvest some glorious Potatoes
@randelnudalo5466
5 жыл бұрын
AdVenture Communist ad
@newriechren2343
5 жыл бұрын
VIVA SLAVOSKA!
@amelk2732
5 жыл бұрын
I hate those ads
@davidhughes5125
5 жыл бұрын
Seriously the future of the world's navy's are submarines
@SomeOne-lx6ms
5 жыл бұрын
It’s one of my favourite games
@theotherguy6951
5 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carriers are not big and slow. Despite being the length of 4 football fields, it's still nothing more than a tiny pinprick measured against the millions of square miles of ocean. It also cruises at 30+ knots which is faster than most submarines and not just locating but tracking a tiny pinprick cruising a 30+ knots through the ocean would not be easy.
@aaronshinkle6465
5 жыл бұрын
Mattis: *Knife hands* Everyone at the defense meeting: He's right you know.
@marrqi7wini54
5 жыл бұрын
Isn't Mattis retired from Secretary of Defense now?
@aaronshinkle6465
5 жыл бұрын
Yes sir
@sarahhaugh7922
4 жыл бұрын
Mattis turned out to be a Deep State operative! What a schmuck!
@samuelalexandrdvorsky1996
5 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carrying submarine, thank me later.
@KingCreeper-1026
5 жыл бұрын
I think Japan tried that during World War II
@brandonliao408
5 жыл бұрын
With vertical launch systems for aircrafts nowadays...its not so much a crazy idea as it doesn't need a runway or catapults. Although capacity will be an issue though.
@moxygenpathogen7678
5 жыл бұрын
Supreme commander
@samuelalexandrdvorsky1996
5 жыл бұрын
@@brandonliao408 Well, this nicely connects with the idea of multiple smaller carriers. Maybe like ten planes per submarine.
@brandonliao408
5 жыл бұрын
@@samuelalexandrdvorsky1996 I see. But an aircraft needs to rearm and refuel. If the submarine can only pop in-and-out when safe, how effective can the combat sorties be?
@eeooooee2234
5 жыл бұрын
China watching this video like “Write that down!”
@isunlloaoll
5 жыл бұрын
They have been trying to make aircraft carriers obsolete for decades by investing heavily into anti ship ballistic missile development. They have succeeded in many ways, and that is why American carriers dont operate off China coast no more. Ironically, china is also investing heavily in developing their own super carriers. So maybe aircraft carriers aren't so obsolete like many 50 cent army claim.
@RobotWithHumanHair.
5 жыл бұрын
@@isunlloaoll the Chinese also constantly fail in their aircraft carrier program
@isunlloaoll
5 жыл бұрын
@@RobotWithHumanHair. how so? They are progressing quite fast atm. Type 002 (001A) in sea trial. Type 003 electro magnetic catapult CATOBAR already under construction. A second type 003 or type 003A likely already under construction. Type 075 LHD has just leaked and rumored to launch by the end of the year.
@eeooooee2234
5 жыл бұрын
ARVIN are a you a party member or something
@arjen20
5 жыл бұрын
@@RobotWithHumanHair. A new carrier is already in construction and that's alarming on how fasts they build their blue water navy capabilities.
@James-ep2bx
5 жыл бұрын
To be fair the US navy weren't as dismissive as they're often presented, and likewise the US isn't as blind to the carriers weakness as many perceive, hence their similar efforts to update their destroyers as well
@MrFlatage
5 жыл бұрын
My 7yo simply called Avengers assemble and defeated Captain James Kirk who was as blind as can be ...
@James-ep2bx
5 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage 0.o?
@cleopatravii2385
4 жыл бұрын
Fun Fact: No country will show off their most important military stuff. The ones you see and hear everyday are just 50% of those which will be used during a possible war...
@CRob172
3 жыл бұрын
@@cleopatravii2385 I’ve heard that the US military is still in a weird way 50 years ahead of everybody else in tech
@kittentales8226
3 жыл бұрын
@@cleopatravii2385 Aim is not to surprise the enemy, Aim is to show off so much that he never thinks of attacking. Russia is just at par in the technological field as US, with less than 1/10th of the military budget and that is a shame for US
@randomfan9948
5 жыл бұрын
Navy:We have the Aircraft of the future!!! Nick Fury: Hold my beer...
@roowho1828
5 жыл бұрын
It's just a gaint drone if you think of it
@NoToBMWS
5 жыл бұрын
Random Fan should have been hold my eyepatch
@supremesoldier354
5 жыл бұрын
If you think ab it a flying carrier is way more vulnerable than a sea one atleast with current technology in the future that could be different tho
@BANG-ce9cc
5 жыл бұрын
Random Fan the air carriers in the avengers movies makes no sense the ship is to heave for those four propellers to lift it up
@BocchiSensei
5 жыл бұрын
@@BANG-ce9cc Well... they were giant propellers
@ahellicopter1396
4 жыл бұрын
This demonstration of yours proves nothing About a century later: American generals: I’ll take your entire stock
@maxmorgan7045
4 жыл бұрын
This needs more likes I think
@anhex.5747
4 жыл бұрын
Max Morgan agreed
@MrEsszed
5 жыл бұрын
@InfographicShow you need to check your history, the British Royal Navy has the first Aircraft Carrier, HMS Furious. It even launched the first carrier born air attack in 1918!
@peterson7082
5 жыл бұрын
First Royal Navy carrier was HMS Argus, in '1917. Though the first take off/ landing from ships are credited to a number of American ships.
@MrEsszed
5 жыл бұрын
Nathan Peterson Argus was not commissioned until 1918 and was the first through deck carrier, namely having a contiguous flight deck from stem to stern. Furious was commissioned in 1917 and had an open or traditional warship forecastle. The American launches were not from carriers per se, but from cruisers with a platform constructed over A and B turrets. These were launch only facilities.
@777Mikos
5 жыл бұрын
While modern missiles are indeed very accurate, it's unclear how you paint a target on a battle group. The seas are vast and if the safety bubble works right, no enemy spy ships or planes should be able to track the group for long enough and accurately enough for the missile strike. Satellites are also too slow for this. Similarly, longer distances worsens rocket accuracy, at the very least because of the lag, but also because of fuel limitations. And it's also not like carrier groups don't have ballistic missiles of their own to silence any ground based launchpad. This and many other tech onboard of carrier groups will ensure that they will be relevant for a while still. There's a reason why USSR believed that the only real counter to the carrier group is a tactical nuke.
@alexanderchristopher6237
5 жыл бұрын
That's, of course, if they can detect where the launchpad were first. And it wouldn't really just be a missile headed for the ship at a given time. It'll be more of a barrage of missiles. Or maybe they'll even use the Soviet's idea: strap a tactical nuke on it.
@royalteluis623
4 жыл бұрын
Alexander Christopher yeah a Single tactical nuke would be the end of humanity
@swordlogic1157
4 жыл бұрын
Alexander Christopher if someone launches a nuke...it’s highly likely to spark nuclear war
@dr.lyleevans6915
4 жыл бұрын
Nik Or what about guided missiles. I’m sure any powerful nation willing to sink carriers have many satellites, drones, and radar/other tech that would at least give them a general idea of where to aim. Get close enough with say, 100 separate missiles (enough to overwhelm defenses and adjust for losses) with remote human drivers. This would be tough to beat.
@aaronbalakey5377
2 жыл бұрын
@@dr.lyleevans6915 you honestly think that these hypersonic missiles are able to be guided by a human??? Lol lol
@ppavankumar2903
5 жыл бұрын
Info graphic: what can be futures aircraft carrier ? Nick fury: are you sure about that
@eouzcuemarz3114
5 жыл бұрын
Pavan Kumar Lol, youre watching too much avengers
@ppavankumar2903
5 жыл бұрын
@@eouzcuemarz3114 the military should hier S.H.I.E.L.D 😂or Tony oh wait he dead umm no not dead as that happens in 2023 so he can also help
@nichsa8984
4 жыл бұрын
@@eouzcuemarz3114 never taken the data big data think again never take in researcher AI nanotech quantum database collecting
@daharos
3 жыл бұрын
Pretty funny how on another Infographics show you point out how the US aircraft carriers are actually the fastest ships in the fleet, able to go beyond 40 knots in all probability.
@loverneverend12
5 жыл бұрын
Thumbnail: futuristic aircraft carrier Me: Que Avengers theme
@hansgruber788
5 жыл бұрын
The battle of Taranto inspired the attack on pearl harbour. It was the British who realised the potential of aircraft carriers first
@dennislloyd494
5 жыл бұрын
The Royal Navy was attacking Zeppelin sheds with naval aircraft in ww1
@rbrick3685
4 жыл бұрын
Imagine thinking the Royal Navy is relevant past WW1. Without America, IJN would have stomped the Royal Navy with no problem.
@leonardokeller5254
4 жыл бұрын
My idea of the perfect, most efficient war machine: Peace
@SupesMe
5 жыл бұрын
What about Submersible Carriers? I was in the Navy in the 80's and they were talking about that back then
@@bruno_kunda they did, but it was usually a lightly armed scout plane and I'm not sure it could land back on the submarine
@blabla-jr8zw
4 жыл бұрын
Japan already did that in ww2
@RedGamingChair
3 жыл бұрын
Guys he is talking about a carrier that can submerge into the water not a submarine carrying planes.. he is talking about a carrier the size of gerald r. Ford to submerge into the water and maybe the runway could be 2 story because the top one will be used to land and the lower one will be where they keep aircraft
@RedGamingChair
3 жыл бұрын
Im also just an idiot here so yeah I dont really know what Im talking about
@asliceofcheese7152
4 жыл бұрын
A big 1.5 km aircraft carrier/battle cruiser with 2 rail guns at the top, can deploy 3 submarines at the bottom, 2 frigates at the back and can deploy 20 water mines (I forgot what they're called) So essentially a mother ship, can carry 70 jets and 4 helicopters. Also there are 10 main gun turrets
@mrboi9583
5 жыл бұрын
I’m studying this stuff and I’m not sure if this would work Economically
@yourfriendlyneighborhoodla2091
5 жыл бұрын
Maybe in a few decades once the economies of a few bigger world powers get bigger.
@infestationleader122
5 жыл бұрын
It could
@dicecorporation
5 жыл бұрын
@Kenneth Flaming 80% of that goes to sustaining hundreds of useless bases around the world. In reality, not a whole lot is being spent on developing new technologies. Unless the bases get closed down they won't find the money to fund these megaprojects.
@williamperez492
5 жыл бұрын
@@dicecorporation useless bases until war breakes out in those areas lol
@LLAALALA
5 жыл бұрын
i'm sure it will be fine, congress can raise the debt ceiling higher than mount Everest
@Milleniumlance
4 жыл бұрын
8:06 polarized hull plating 👍
@B_M_DUBBA_U_
5 жыл бұрын
6:50 these energy defenses will not likely be coming online until another decade * starts to mobilize army now instead of wait
@nickvinsable3798
4 жыл бұрын
Look up the Venator, its a careful hybrid of an aircraft carrier & a battleship and such…
@M81005
4 жыл бұрын
a generic star destroyer would do
@M81005
4 жыл бұрын
36 light ion cannon batteries
@nickvinsable3798
4 жыл бұрын
Oh sure, alec zhong, the Imperial Class has a runway long enough for our aircraft to land & take off…
@arunnaik1469
5 жыл бұрын
1919 : I think there will be flying cars in the future 2019 :
@DanksterPaws
5 жыл бұрын
arun naik how about flying cars on a floating car?
@Marco-hl6gz
4 жыл бұрын
Flying Aircraft Carriers... Oh wait
@paulmarchant9231
4 жыл бұрын
@@Marco-hl6gz look up Avro Vulcan.... Plan was to upgrade and sling three gnat jets beneath, carrying them deep into enemy territory before releasing them on what killed the idea...... A suicide mission. There was also the " skyhook" idea of hanging harriers beneath airships.....Japan probably did most of the research on that one, and then the US had the idea of 747s carrying fighter jets inside...... Lots of things " can be done", but it comes down to how much bang can you get for your bucks.....
@theotherguy6951
5 жыл бұрын
While aircraft wouldn't be needed to deliver such long range missiles to the target themselves, they would still be needed to provide targeting data for the launch platform of those missiles since it can't acquire it with their own sensors because they're too far away. So aircraft and their carriers would not be obsolete in the future but would just play a smaller but vital role in naval operations.
@ONW4V3R
5 жыл бұрын
>WW2: "Battleships are obsolete!" -Scharnhorst & Gnesenau : hold our beer -USS Washington: what do you mean "obsolete"? It's likeley that the Aircraft Carrier concept is already obsolete however, as WW2 showed, "obsolete" in naval therms does not mean uneffective nor useless. We will probably still see CV for a long time
@honkhonk8009
3 жыл бұрын
Battleships should be treated more like moving island bases. Their not an offensive weapon and shouldnt even be at the front lines. They should be for logistical purposes only.
@immanuel_shadowhammonds2813
4 жыл бұрын
I have a few suggestions! I do agree that the Aircraft Carrier will become smaller at some point with the advancement of Drones. However, the application of Stealth may help the Aircraft Carrier Survive.
@johnhunt731
5 жыл бұрын
wasn't the Royal Navy 1918 HMS Argus and the HMS Hermes 1st Aircraft Carriers followed by Japan and the USA?.
@russiandispenser8482
5 жыл бұрын
Argus was a converted ship made in to a carrier, 1st build carrier is the IJN Hosho.
@johnhunt731
5 жыл бұрын
@@russiandispenser8482 yes true converted Argus Was Hermes was commissioned 1st and the build 1st, the Japan Carrier did get to service 1st i think 1924-25, HMS Hermes set sail weeks after HMS Hermes was and is 1st Aircraft Carrier commissioned 1917-18 By The Royal Navy
@theoraclerules5056
5 жыл бұрын
Yep! You’re correct on both counts. However, due to immediate post-WW1 Admiralty defence cuts & new treaty limitations (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), the RN’s Aircraft Carriers Development Programme was severely curtailed! HMS Hermès was the first purpose-built Aircraft Carrier whose keel was laid down in 1918 & form was morphed out of the experimental test ship & converted Passenger ship, HMS Argus, to carry & launch aircraft from its decks made operational in 1916/17. After numerous budgeting delays it was eventually launched in 1922 & commissioned into the RN in 1924. However, the much smaller IJNS Hōshō (Phoenix, in English) Aircraft Carrier had been originally laid down in 1920, launched on 1921 & eventually commissioned for service in 1922, two years actually before the HMS Hermès entered service.
@richardautry8269
5 жыл бұрын
An American was the first to take off from a naval vessel and the first to land on one. But the slant of the video probably has more to do with the fact that US has produced more aircraft carriers than the rest of the entire world combined. As well as the only super carriers belong to the US. China has the Type 003 under construction.
@blabla-jr8zw
4 жыл бұрын
@@richardautry8269 wrong
@3RAG0NSNIWAK
3 жыл бұрын
Ok. Yes, a lot of weapons are designed to take down aircraft carriers. But they’re also designed to defend against those attack. You also have the battle group which is designed to protect the carrier and act as bullet sponges if need be. The carrier itself is a bullet sponge as well and notoriously hard to sink. And with projected energy beam weapons, it’ll make defense against missiles significantly easier.
@hiro9253
5 жыл бұрын
instead of wasting money on aircraft carriers, the US should focus on researching fusion power or focusing on space exploration, the world as of now is too stagnant.
@JustFun-tv5er
4 жыл бұрын
Natsumei yea, the future aircraft carriers are star destroyers
@cleopatravii2385
4 жыл бұрын
Why?! Space?... What about protection of our country. Because of that as you say “waste of money” you can dream about that stuff and live normal life and not in a war zone. Edit: Yeah, these things like space exploration is cool but use a different term when saying “wasting money.”
@stevec.8196
4 жыл бұрын
Hand-held Rail Guns. Thank you 'Erasure' with the Governator.
@Thebreakawayexplorer
5 жыл бұрын
Infographic show HQ: We don't have new content. *Silence* Everyone: Naval Fleet show? Everyone: Naval Fleet Show!
@jimiweetbix8926
5 жыл бұрын
Modern carriers are not as slow as you think..
@waffle3632
4 жыл бұрын
Bro you already messed up, a jump ramp at the end is an old design that allows for a lower payload and less deck space
@blaircolquhoun7780
3 жыл бұрын
They said the same thing about the tank back in the 1970s but the tank's still on the battlefield.
@drkirbkennethkirby7634
5 жыл бұрын
Dreadnaught class wasn't really a thing until the early 1900s...that's a pretty easy fact to know.
@rusty2spooky674
2 жыл бұрын
As a retired sailor I can 110% say that the aircraft carrier is 100% necessary and thr fact that you try and convince people that a super carrier is that "vulnerable" is a testament to just how little you understand the capabilities and advantages even modern day Nimitz carriers provide let alone the new generation of Ford carriers
@TheBigExclusive
4 жыл бұрын
I don't see what the problem is. If it's a battle of who has the longest range, why don't you just take the long range missiles that other countries are making to sink Carriers....and put them on the Carrier. Now you have a Carrier AND super long range missiles.
@insanedane2165
4 жыл бұрын
I think the future of anything military-aircraft related is pretty clear. I think you're right about the need for smaller ships, but more of them. But looking at the development of the X-47 and the testing of "drone swarms", as much as I love the idea of old-school Carrier Ops, I think the future of navies lie in smaller drone-carriers with the ability to field a range of different kinds of UCAV's - Possbily even entire naval-drone fleets, fielding drone squadrons. UCAV's are getting more and more capable and I'm no expert, but it seems like there would be a considerable price-tag decrease in the future if you no longer need super carriers to field areal units, which could result in carrier fleets becoming available to smaller and smaller nations. That's just my take though.
@miguelzavala7580
5 жыл бұрын
The aircraft carrier is far from slow being faster than most other ships in use
@guida1480
5 жыл бұрын
This channel just remind us every week how powerful the USA is and how they are the best.
@heelia_editz
5 жыл бұрын
Do a video on the Amazon forest fire. Ya know just to spread awareness
@philipphutzenthaler9785
4 жыл бұрын
To the point that supercarriers are slow: the Ford class is up to 60 km/h fast, that is very fast even compared to new much smaller ships. And the manouverability of this carriers would also suprise most
@rbrick3685
4 жыл бұрын
Turning port heel to starboard.
@abdelghanimeralet9423
5 жыл бұрын
last time I was this early bismarck wasn't sunked yet!
@Meravokas
5 жыл бұрын
The major problem with this video is that it doesn't actually address the current state of defenses on Destroyers AND carriers themselves CWIS defense guns have the capability of tracking and taking down multiple missiles. And it's rare for an actual carrier to have just a single CWIS unit on board. They're actually more effective than counter missiles, but used in conjunction it'd take quite a volley of missiles to cause major damage if a carrier actually has to get within that sort of range of a power that has such land based capabilities. Which is unlikely given the effective range of even just the F-16 for moderate ground strikes and air support.
@muhammadzakuanmusa2696
5 жыл бұрын
Next video should be: how to evade laser gun so that a missile can strike future supercarriers easily.
@Legion849
5 жыл бұрын
Hahahaha
@52flyingbicycles
5 жыл бұрын
Just cover the missile in mirrors lol
@muhammadzakuanmusa2696
5 жыл бұрын
@@52flyingbicycles Brilliant! U.S.: We are fooked
@denisrichu5697
4 жыл бұрын
@@52flyingbicycles The concept of deflector shield is already being studied..
@chansangwoon5049
4 жыл бұрын
I think the supercarrier can be a depot or repair centre and the smaller carriers as front line attack. I think the drones will be widely used as their lost in seas will be difficult to recover, thus protecting secrets.
@ryanahmad9147
5 жыл бұрын
So they basically made the hellicariar (From MARVEL)
@aryarajmane6393
5 жыл бұрын
They're trying to create Wankanda
@chrisg2378
5 жыл бұрын
Maybe Barack Obema is secretly Neck Fury?
@52flyingbicycles
5 жыл бұрын
The super-expensive helicarrier from Avengers was taken down by 3 arrows. They would have all died if some billionaire hadn’t invented flying power armor. The other 3 helicarriers from Winter Soldier we defeated by a hack that made them shoot each other. Clearly helicarriers are not the future.
@chrisg2378
5 жыл бұрын
@@52flyingbicycles the future is cyber warfare then? Let the other countries build powerful warmachines and hack it so it could be used to destroy them?
@iplaygames5490
4 жыл бұрын
@@aryarajmane6393 its wakanda...
@dr_palmtree4734
4 жыл бұрын
I think the US should look into future technology maybe so more disabling missile weapons.
@rbrick3685
4 жыл бұрын
It exists it's called a CWIS
@nelsonherrmann5064
5 жыл бұрын
last time i was this early, i... i.. um ive never been this early....
@jsvnabsb8265
5 жыл бұрын
Stop
@asat72
5 жыл бұрын
a future of aircraft carriers could be submarine carriers, this eliminates the risk of anti ship missiles and are also much harder to detect. so, in theory, a sub carrier could surface, deploy its aircraft and then re submerge before the enemy anti ship missiles could lock on. And they could use VTOL aircraft to eliminate the need for a runway. I think the idea was though of by the Japanese during WW2 but the idea was scraped.
@darthvapor9817
5 жыл бұрын
right on man, very smart.
@dobbieskigames3650
5 жыл бұрын
Your starting history is wrong the British made the first aircraft carrier with first deck landing in 1917 and so began the aircraft carrier!
@firefox8505
5 жыл бұрын
Also misleading regarding the tests of the early bombers against the German battleship. The planes took an extremely long time with the battleship not firing back and in perfect weather conditions, or according to some, a failure.
@rbrick3685
4 жыл бұрын
@pbr streetgang Saying British were first to making an Aircraft carrier is like saying the Chinese invented the first gun. Americans perfected the carrier and the Royal Navy is basically irrelevant.
@michaelsheen5354
4 жыл бұрын
I subscribe to the need to decentralize naval strike power. I would go further and foresee ships launching fleets of drones and other UAV's, which could carry out every mission currently done by naval air power...and tech upgrades would become far easier again, with refits perhaps carried out in theater.
@Giblet12
5 жыл бұрын
>Aircraft cattier is the future >Ramp No
@DanksterPaws
5 жыл бұрын
It’s funny how we spend so much on a war that will never come, yet spending is what actually keeps the war from happening, we are stuck with two choices where we both lose....
@teddyj5187
4 жыл бұрын
War is coming
@thespacebirb1743
4 жыл бұрын
ya know, I have a feeling that the future of naval combat will come from not aircraft-carriers or battleships, but submarines, due to their relatively small profile, their speed, stealth, and ability to pretty much remove problems of missiles, bombs, cannons, and some even nuclear strikes, submarines have a very bright future in naval combat as well as maybe even future transportation. But to summarize what I have said: Submersibles such as submarines, are most likely the future of the new world navy.
@wesleyburley5357
5 жыл бұрын
Hey infographics show could you do a video on applying to the military academies. I really want to go to the academy and you may find out something I didn't know and I think more people should know about the academies
@timrobinson513
5 жыл бұрын
And who built the first proper aircraft carrier hmmmm? Let’s forget about HMS Hermes and talk about the Americans.
@cchapple7777
5 жыл бұрын
Tim Robinson the info graphic show is entirely US centric
@peterlloyd8313
4 жыл бұрын
First purpose built carrier was HMS Glorious i beleave.Befor that the british had a converted battleship.
@listless9384
4 жыл бұрын
@@cchapple7777 US centric to the point of bending facts.
@leonedralev3776
4 жыл бұрын
they never said that it was the Americans that built the first carrier. What they showed is that an American general first demonstrated the ability of a bomber to sink a battleship. He showed to the admirals that the future of naval combat is through the use of aircraft and not the big gun battleship. Jes
@shulongzhao
4 жыл бұрын
@@peterlloyd8313 the first purpose built carrier was the IJN Hosho.
@kirkmcclean9686
4 жыл бұрын
Space aircraft carrier. Boom. Where's my check Uncle Sam?
@metrunui8224
5 жыл бұрын
They should build a star destroyer or something..that thing is difficult to hit reach from any attack
@M81005
4 жыл бұрын
only if we can expand for gravity reducers
@charlessmith8679
2 жыл бұрын
@@M81005 I'll have that capability, and this isn't a joke
@bendirval3612
5 жыл бұрын
Supercarriers are not slow. Who wrote this? Due to the incredible power of the nuclear reactors they have, they are much, much faster than any other ships out there. They could easily zip past all the other ships in their battle group, and any other ships on the sea, even if those ships are operating at top speed.
@sidkarabc5878
5 жыл бұрын
Hey you Go outside and get admit in the engineering to make this aircraft carrier
@dicecorporation
5 жыл бұрын
I would rather get admitted in the engineering to defeat it ;D
@giraffeman326
5 жыл бұрын
NO U
@MrFlatage
5 жыл бұрын
@@dicecorporation Hmmm one Vietcong in swimming trunks and a backpack bomb could sink a US carrier ... Why do you want to engineer anything when it is that simple?
@dicecorporation
5 жыл бұрын
@@MrFlatage the floating yankeestani junk is not worth a human life imo ;D
@MrFlatage
5 жыл бұрын
@@dicecorporation Yea don't mess with us Yankee's? US found that out the hard way too ... We make stuff that actually works. Our next US carrier killer will be launched in 2020.
@craigkdillon
4 жыл бұрын
A big purpose of carriers is to show the flag. Battleships used to do that, but carrier groups do that now.
@erichvonmanstein1952
5 жыл бұрын
Nobody: US: *Smiles*
@WestValleyTransparency
3 жыл бұрын
The future of the aircraft carrier will depend on the STOVL technology of their aircraft. You could launch more aircraft via STOVL to defend a carrier than using catapults
@KaRmaTheSchemer
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah nah yeah robot battle ships Nothing can go wrong there 👌😅
@atticus4112
5 жыл бұрын
This is my favorite video so far from you guys
@vAqeii
5 жыл бұрын
Okay, _I guess i'll fly_
@86razrose
4 жыл бұрын
A few mistakes, first aircraft carrier was HMS Argos, rail guns have problems with barrel linings, lasers attenuate swiftly.
@simoncowell7063
5 жыл бұрын
Aircraft carriers would never even come close enough in an active war zone to be targeted by long anti ship missiles. I mean come on think about it, you have jets that can fly for 4000+ miles so there would be no reason to come anywhere close to the shore
@MrFlatage
5 жыл бұрын
@@ItsTheJahJah Did you forgot the US Navy sea shamans? Everytime a US Carrier travels through the Straight of Hormuz they use sea magic to make that straight over 4000 miles wide ... right? ;-)
@CM-ve1bz
4 жыл бұрын
Michel Platteeuw Maybe you forgot, no carrier would enter the straits during a time of conflict.
@dr.lyleevans6915
4 жыл бұрын
They have to resupply and whatnot. Also, time is important; giving the enemy more time to prepare a defense, taking longer to assist your own troops etc could be the difference between winning and losing
@workindad
4 жыл бұрын
Use the carrier to transport hundreds or even thousands of weaponized drones. The drone control room doesn't even need to be on the carrier as the carrier can probably relay the signal to a bunker somewhere else that's more secure.
@ivankaleoniefuchs333
4 жыл бұрын
There may be aircraft carriers of this type used more frequently in the near future than they are currently, but NOT within the next 100+ years will they replace all fighter aircraft with unmanned fighter drones. The technology simply won't happen so soon allowing a fighter drone operator to out-fly a human pilot in the cockpit of another aircraft, even considering current/future aircraft structural integrity und pilot G-Force limitations. The drone operator won't be able to out-think the human pilot who ist actually there. Aircraft carriers with "sloped runway decks" won't of benefit to the ever evolving need to carry more weapons on heavier Navy fighter aircraft. This fact in itself dictates the continued use of "catapult launching methods" similar to those in use by the American Navy. They've been doing it longer than anyone, have a gute reason they haven't changed it. Ballistic missiles will be detected by American ground-based radars immediately after they're launched. The American Navy has been able to detect submarine Conning Towers rising only 5 feet above the ocean's surface since World War 2. They haven't any problem detecting und tracking sea-skimming cruise missiles at very long range...smiles Since the American Navy anti-missile systems (carried by common size Task Force) are "finite" at about 300 incoming threats at once, then of course they could be over-whelmed at some point before reloading their deck launchers, but neither the Chinese or Russians have the support capability radar chain to affect such attack for very long before the American Navy eliminates/jams such chained dependent ground-based radar systems, und the independent onboard missile close-range acquisition/targeting system. The American Navy will know about incoming cruise missiles/aircraft 100s of miles before they become a threat, und ist quite capable of jamming/destroying a large number of incoming missiles, as well bombing their tracking radar sites. Without the continuing information updates from ground-based tracking Chinese radars, their missiles can only target the last known locations of American Carriers. The American Carriers will surely NOT be there, und the smart missiles internal acquisition/targeting will be of NO use. The Chinese missiles will simply run out of fuel und crash into the Pacific. Hyper-sonic Chinese missiles ist a complete waste of time. Any American anti-missiles won't be chasing the incoming threat, they will simply fly to intercept the enemy incoming fight path. The much faster hyper-sonic missiles can NOT perform aerial maneuvers (change altitude or direction) as quickly that of slower anti-missiles that only need to get in the way of their flight path und detonate within proximity. The American anti-missiles don't even have to hit the incoming missiles, just get close enough in front of them. With current technological timeline as example? Aircraft carriers of the current American types, with human pilots, will be roaming about for quite many more decades, maybe even the next 100+ years even if fighter/bomber drones become a more norm. Yes of course much smaller aircraft carriers may become more benefit und the Super-carrier may become obsolete, but I'm not witnessing any evidence indicating the Americans are becoming complacent about any of these such things...smiles
@roberthicks1612
4 жыл бұрын
How about making the carriers submersible? You see a wave of missiles coming in, you shut down topside operations, bringing in all crew and dive. Missiles hit the waves and explode, then you resurfaces and continue operations.
@abdiahmed3489
5 жыл бұрын
When you are early and don't know what to comment
@Rtbjavison
5 жыл бұрын
Abdi Ahmed this is kinda true I just want to get over 1k likes for the first time
@abdiahmed3489
5 жыл бұрын
@@Rtbjavison well just comment something funny and early
@matthewlo55
5 жыл бұрын
It's night here buddy.
@kishore369
5 жыл бұрын
@@Rtbjavison I got 5k likes + and that's my highest... It was a video of the Infographic Show of USA + India vs Russia + China
@H43339
5 жыл бұрын
@@kishore369 I had 6K, Ha Ha !!!
@MrGhostP5000
4 жыл бұрын
Very interesting love it
@marloyt7786
5 жыл бұрын
The aircraft carrier of the future will be an Airborne Aircraft Carrier.
@thomascrabtree
5 жыл бұрын
More like airborne drone carrier, like an armoured blimp, but yes.
@insanedane2165
4 жыл бұрын
I really doubt that. Unless we somehow invent fusion within the next few decades and the weight of a fusion reactor somehow isn't that of a small city, I don't think we'll be getting Avenger Carriers anytime soon. Also - It seems to me that having a several thousand tonne massive object flying around at low speed, that would potentially have to counter all sorts of advanced weapon systems including nuclear weapons, rail guns and what not, might not be such a sound investment, looking at how fragile a fleet at sea already is to modern weapon systems.
@M81005
4 жыл бұрын
@@insanedane2165 use that invisibility used in Project Philadelphia
@Levitiy
4 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, the Arsenal Bird. Look it up, you'll thank me.
@zyrillesadventurei5104
4 жыл бұрын
So in the MCU they have done it early??
@fancyfox3602
5 жыл бұрын
It amazes me how little effort you guys can put into the animation of your videos and still somehow keep people watching.
@bythebeardofmatt
5 жыл бұрын
Ads every two minutes...again...
@rohltadyse
5 жыл бұрын
Skip to the end and then restart the video and the ads are gone
@pluggothesluggo5509
4 жыл бұрын
@@rohltadyseinteresting
@dr.lyleevans6915
4 жыл бұрын
therapy doesn’t work on mobile
@karlmajerus6263
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine a unique carrier- cross between a sub and carrier. One half the size of the old Diesel carrier, but more fire power. I propose a sub that pops up in range of the enemy, part of the deck rolls back and out comes ten small jets on VTOL. Each is. The size of a small car, they are both A I and controlled by pilots on the sub. These can turn tighter than a regular jet and more maneuverable. The sub can be protected under water by torpedoes and on surface by phalanx guns. Cruise missels will be replaced by hyper Sonic missels and rail guns.
@mangkulas1878
5 жыл бұрын
Ur comparing future aircraft carrier to te late ancient missile attack.
@LCNfootsoldier
5 жыл бұрын
mang kulas true
@shaundominick3719
5 жыл бұрын
They should make a submarine that can take down its top and turn into a carrier. That would be sick and smart asf and worth it
@shaundominick3719
5 жыл бұрын
Call it a Carrier Submarine lol
@princebasaya950
5 жыл бұрын
Nice video Infographics Show!
@joelo0504
4 жыл бұрын
Future aircraft carriers with 1 million drones. "We are the swarm!"
@elite4championjosh
5 жыл бұрын
Nuclear Submarines > Air Carrier Goodnight
@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736
5 жыл бұрын
Torpedo Helicopters > Nuclear Submarines
@elite4championjosh
5 жыл бұрын
@@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736 you have to find them first and the have limited range. Sub can dive and stay down forever or until food runs out, chopper has 30 minutes top. Hardly a threat
@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736
5 жыл бұрын
@@elite4championjosh that's when I tell you that diving is not going to help, the sub got detected way before any heli is there and the torpedos of today seek the target the found
@elite4championjosh
5 жыл бұрын
@@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736 air carriers out in open, subs aren't, hard to destroy what can't be seen eg stealth. And those torpedoes still have to find the subs. You said so yourself l, they have to seek. I win. Goodnight
@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736
5 жыл бұрын
@@elite4championjosh do you understand that the fact of the sub existing underwater makes a distortion on the earth's magnetic field that makes any patrol plane on that carrier detect the submarine, which them is relayed for the Carrier that them sends sub hunters after the submarine, and Just one more thing planes and helis are the main danger for subs
@padmaraj262
4 жыл бұрын
You can use that for quarantine... Probably the only use it will ever have
@informationcollectionpost3257
4 жыл бұрын
I feel that the use of air craft carriers will be more limited in the future. Air craft carriers give you more flexibility but they are vulnerable. You can with draw air craft, but you can't already launched missiles. Therefore, future air craft carriers will be smaller, equipped with vertical take off and landing air craft, and accompanied with missile destroyers to accomplish part of the air craft carriers job.
@siwel6928
4 жыл бұрын
that flying boat thing that was in the avengers but i think you would need like ten of them. That would be my perfect war machine.
@toddabbott781
5 жыл бұрын
First of all artillery is WAY more accurate that bombers in WWI and WWII. While China has some ASBM with those ranges, they do not have many and they are not that accurate or reliable. The US carrier fleets usually have at least 3 missile destroyers with almost 100 defensive missiles as well as their new LaWS and the carrier's own defenses. Combine this with the air superiority and destructive power of its aircraft and the electronic warfare capabilities the US could defeat China with 2 carrier fleets. We have 62 Arleigh Burke class missile destroyers with more coming every year and the LaWS (Laser Weapon System) is already deployed on several of the newer version 3 destroyers and by 2020 the strength of the laser is supposed to triple or more letting it take down missiles and possibly jets and will be deployed more widely. It is planned to more than double in strength again likely by 2025. Rail Guns while nice are no where near as practicals of a weapon. And Hypersonic weapons are not any larger threat than non hypersonic weapons. the SM-2 and SM-3 are more than capable of handling missiles going MUCH faster and while hypersonic missiles are faster they can not run as fast or fly as low. The US has one, but they only use it for testing because it is not any more effective but it larger and more expensive. They whine about possible vulnerabilities all the time in the hopes of getting their budget increased. And if you did not know the US is basically the ONLY country with real aircraft carriers. Russia has one ancient one left and some 30+ year old jets that can use it, but that one carrier is the only non US carrier that can launch jets from. All the rest are smaller ones that carry VTOL and helicopters. The US has 11 super carriers and 9 Americana/Wasp smaller carriers.
@davidhobbs5679
5 жыл бұрын
And the fact that America HAS a military monopoly on the seas means that the research into removing it without aircraft is credible and something to be worried about. Don't want to be stuck fighting the last war.
@ingendukjennerv2198
4 жыл бұрын
What about the queen Elizabeth yes I know they are supposed to launch the vtol versions of the f-35 but I would say that is a carrier and not a small carrier but maybe I am wrong
@felurfalas4427
3 жыл бұрын
Smaller carriers that launch drones are the way to go. A token force to maintain the drones and ship operations. Less people also means less supplies to feed those people, and more space for even more drones.
@TheAirportAviation
5 жыл бұрын
Me: yay i am early *sees almost 100 comments already* me: rip me
@blackmailer26
3 жыл бұрын
When you described the new armor, all I could think of was, "that sounds like a big capacitors"
@goldenraidz1090
5 жыл бұрын
How about more smaller but with those classified ship armor???
@aurorajones8481
5 жыл бұрын
Ill say it, the next step is Submarine Drone Carriers. Being above water is far to dangerous it needs to be underwater with a screen of attack subs and mini drone subs. When needed the SDC rises and launches its arial drones and missiles then submerge again.
@yousifoday2811
5 жыл бұрын
When you come in the first minutes but you don't know what to write
@robertmosher7418
4 жыл бұрын
You cannot provide close airsupport to ground troops with misses as when they are fired they cannot see a target they want to destroy so it's not possible to effectively engage foreign fighters. As well, missels go boom, really big boom and that means danger close is very far away from the forward trace of your infantry. You would have to put your ground troops at severe risk to make them safe. An A10 Warthog can provide support with it's 30 mm chain gun with a danger close of 100 meters.
@BocchiSensei
5 жыл бұрын
This were shields come in... *Queue the starwars music*
@M81005
4 жыл бұрын
-" Power up the rear deflector shields!"- Admiral Ackbar
@mattpliska
Жыл бұрын
The Carrier has always been vulnerable when close enough to the shore. Its just that now that danger zone has grown. The US needs to rethink the Carrier. The emphasis needs to be on long range capabilities. Carrier based Long-range stealth drones like the white bat for strike and ISR, Carrier based aerial refueling and Carrier launched long range cruise missiles.
Пікірлер: 1,8 М.