In 1984, Prime Minister David Lange barred nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using New Zealand ports or entering New Zealand waters. Under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, territorial sea, land and airspace of New Zealand became nuclear-free zones. This has since become a sacrosanct touchstone of New Zealand foreign policy.[3]
@kamborambo11 and why am i dumb as fuck? no US nuke powered war ship has ever come into nz waters since nz became nuke free, the US dosent just get to do what ever it wants whenever it wants, they have to follow the rules just like any other country
@ErinandVan These ships can't dock in many Australian ports and the Australian government has the guts to say they can't, funnily enough the americans don't try anything
Thanks for that. Your carriers are awesome. Yeah! I meant a jealous Brit. Slip of the right index finger. The only thing in the world which impresses me are those most excellent carriers utterly BRILLIANT. I will however gently remind you the Brits invented the carrier catapult launch gear, and the visual landing light. Just make sure you guys keep building them. Best wishes.
@gibscot2 I assume you meant to type "A jealous Brit." But you won't have to be jealous for long when you get the HMS Queen Elizabeth. No, she won't be quite the size of the 11 US supercarriers but she'll be a hell of a ship. (Hopefully followed by HMS Prince of Wales.) Personally I'm looking forward to seeing her in action along side the US carriers.
You will be watching it on your CNN and Fox news in a couple of mouths when they get bombed and are in the bottom of the ocean with more then 3000 dead
its funny "we can park anywere we want to in the world" typical american bullshit, i would like to see this aircraft carrier parked somewere in china :)
@ispg2992 Yeah it is funny because, we do that EVERY DAY. The USS John C Stennis Carrier Group and about 40 other vessels including Battleships and Submarines are always docked in Hong Kong harbor. Along with any number of Aircraft Carriers at any time. Before posting something that makes you sound like a complete moron, try using Google. Dickhead.
Sound of asshole! You have just one purpose: To steal oil from arab countries for your fucking Bush-es, first,second,third or who the fuck knows. Assholes! Fuck USA oilers,a bunch of morons!!!
To those people arguing about being able to take this thing out with little effort. Please stop deluding yourselves. Carriers don't go anywhere alone, they travel in groups which comprise of various different kind of vessels suited for specific roles that keep the fleet safe. A carrier group is just about the most difficult thing in existence on this Earth to take on by force. To try would be suicide unless you have a far more advanced and/or numerically superior attacking force.
How many homeless Americans can this ship house ???
How many factories instead of this ship can be built ??
How many Americans die freezing to death can reactors of this ship save???
President Eisenhower used to fight the military-industrial complex for EVERY DOLLAR that is put into toys and gadgets for the military is a ONE DOLLAR taken from the homeless and the needy.
A super power on the backs of the homeless can not stand.
And after the 5 years, they are probably fired or laid off ...
And to maintain that odious ship of TONNES and TONNES of fuel, food, and other supplies, the resources will be robbed from someone else's.
For the TONNES of food wasted on that ship, it can feed malnourished American children. For the families that can not afford the cost of heating, they can have those 2 nuclear reactors heating +2000 homes as the video boasts.
It is guns vs books, butter vs ammo, and Israel stands to gain.
There comes FAITH and BELIEF in Allah and the Hereafter.
Muslims are the MOST charitable people, not because we seek a return on the donated money in this life, but rather we seek a return from Allah in the Hereafter.
If America wants to solve all of is problems, it should embrace Islam.
No, a nation needs a SYSTEM of taking care of the poor. A system based on ABSOLUTE justice that has tenets of criminalizing usury, protecting individuals' rights to affordable prices.. In Islam, no exploitation is allowed by charging more than 10% of the cost and NO monopoly is permitted.
No Islamic Caliphate had a central bank, but it had Bayt Al-Mal (House of Wealth) for ALL the Muslim lands, distributing COLLECTED Zakat (charity) to the poor.
@JesusChristMuslim About that 5 years you are lucky to have that kind of job a Blue collar job.. in that 5 years you can save money... you know there is no permanent job..
and those people who aboard that ship has a job too. to protect and serve the country and there love ones. they are not wasting tonnes of food there they are people to you know?.. about nuclear power you said. I can't give you reply to that but if you choose Fuel or that? which better? to save money?..
There are better jobs than killing people for a coin
In Islam, there is NO standing army as it erodes liberty, wealth, consolidates power, marginalizes people, overrides the laws and commandments of Allah
Why not adopt the Swedish model? All you need to take down an airplane is SAM, shoulder-fired STINGER & such.. and to blow up a tank is an RPG-7.
An armed public is the BEST defense for repelling invaders. Standing armies erode liberty, incite unrest, 1st victim of an empire is citizenship
@JesusChristMuslim there is a t in hearts. Not really, my bro was a royal marine and the only thing they were scared of was not getting the first steak when they got back. sex is great and the only people who says its not are religious people or people who are virgins.
its the much smaller unknown, 2 the public, weapons that the u.s. has that are scarrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy or awesome. for example...ufos reported or seen r actually u.s.a. weapons
I'm let me remind you dumb ass you ain't winning this war either USA force there for over 10 years too did the change any thing??? maybe but as soon as they going to pool out every there is going to be another war cause Taliban are going to come back !!! so shot your hole
So keep building your super carriers that cost million and millions of dollars we just going to bild anti carriers torpedoes and rockets that cost millions dollars less cause we bild to protect our country not to atack others like you Americans think its always cheaper to bild an RPGs rocket than a tank I think you got my point
Damn reliable that people can tryst it. your f-22 was destroyed by t-50 and our weapons if youll do reaserch is to protect not for atac small weak countries you got that now do the math why not even you guys could not attack Russia cause it no one ever hade a successful war with us
Ok sure 70s sound good at list our torpedoes from 70 that are able to destroy your carriers can go up to 300 miles underwater you guys steal dreaming of it our weapons don't need propaganda every one knows it's easy and so
These toys are beautiful. They will also soon be obsolete. The world is changing. Everything's going electronic. A team of hackers in a room somewhere could damage a nation very badly without a shot fired. War is primarily economic in origin and cause. These toys will still be used for awhile. I doubt they will be needed for their entire expected service life though. It's the economic war we are losing. Thanks to far right politicians commiting treason and selling out the country.
This guy forget somting what hes blubbering what ever what country??? he can invade when ever presedent says Go and noting cant stop him??? Not even a balistic missle whit 8 warheads... he sow funny i think he at 2 much burgers and halusinating from it... propaganda
Why do idiots have to make dumb arse comments. This is a interesting story about something awesome, I come here to view and and place logical comments not stupid idiotic comments. Grow up children.
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh Alright, then get of this American built and owned website and quit using our innovations, the interent. See, there are too many anit American morons on in this world who continue to blab about U.S. achievements and power, yet they sit here (like you) and enjoy American innovation. Without the U.S. you'd be no where. Go home little kid.
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh Alright, then get off this American built and owned website and quit using our innovations, the interent. See, there are too many anit American morons in this world who continue to blab about U.S. achievements and power, yet they sit here (like you) and enjoy American innovation. Without the U.S. you'd be no where. Go home little kid.
Because determining the torpedo's pattern accurately and in advance is close to impossible and maneuvering in it to lay preventive decoys is time-consuming and obviously dangerous, they are only dropped after an eventual lock on.
a towed emitter. Neither is close to 100% effective. It is also the reason why reverse turning is not a realistic option : you don't take precious time off your escape from the pattern to disturb a torpedo that may well not lock onto you. Besides, the uselessness of that maneuver doesn't come from timing but from the widening of the wake's disturbances, they become 100s of metres large after less than a minute, meaning that a reverse turn will only have the effect of erasing the traces of any...
for the usual passive/active mix, the ship will have to lay active decoys and get as far away as possible from them not to present a larger target, but to be careful in its escape timing to cut the engines and drop passive decoys when the passive torps get there. The danger resides in either not making noise but staying too close for the actives to lock on, or getting away but by making enough noise late enough to attract the passives.
And if the torps are wakehoming, there is no decoying them.
(hom many active, how many passive, what's the course of each), and it starts laying down decoys in a specific plan to fool the torps away from its own hull. The ship also has to put distance between it and the decoys, since between an extremely loud decoy and the ship's engine/a thick bubble field and the hull, the torpedo may still choose the ship if both are close enough.
The actual doctrine for evasion is specific to each navy and is classified, but we can be sure of some general things :
By copying the noise of a ship's engine for passive torps, or making a bubble screen for active ones, but torpedoes are programmed so that if they successfully home into a target but go "through it" without exploding, they resume their searching pattern. Since that is likely to happen with a decoy, the ship must have gotten out of that pattern before the torp starts searching again.
So basically, what happens when a surface ship detects a launch is that it analyses the composition of the salvo
This Punk said they can be anyway they want to be yea right Try one day to take your big ass warship in Russia border see how they gonna destroy in one second!!
Now, getting these parameters from simple bearings and with sufficient accuracy requires a lot of triangulation, which is why a submarine may spend half an hour maneuvering around target, listening, in order to compute a suitable solution.
For the surface ship responding to a torpedo launch, it gets ONE chance to fire on this bearing without all the additional parameters, meaning a "dumb" torpedo which goes straight ahead and hopes to lock on on the way, aka a snapshot.
...possible, then breaks contact and prepares to evade the unavoidable counterattack. The scariest weapon that can be used against a sub is a rocket-torpedo hybrid, basically a flying torpedo that drops into the water close to the sub's location and starts tracking. However, thanks to deep diving and stealth, a submarine is quite survivable.
Homing torpedoes have made the submarine the greatest threat there is to surface ships since the 50's, and they are as efficient now than always.
it would be wise to invent warningpods for warships. consisting of a sonar scanning for torpedo signatures and a launcher wich holds supercavitating interceptors.
"We can park off anybody's coast without permission"? Hah, the arrogance of it! No asking permission of the country in question then? If I were PM I'd want them to ask my permission, or else we do have several Trident subs hanging around.
@ww2guy100 Don't think so. Bismark was 823 ft and Yamato/Musashi were 839ft. HMS Hood was even longer at 860 ft. Beam of Bismark was 118ft against 127ft for Yamato. And Bismark displaced 55,000 tons at full load compared to 71,659 for Yamato.
@SuperAncientmariner i know but the yamato was 863 and 10 in by the way that was my little brother is is 8 and is convinced that the bismarck is the biggest ship in the history of mankind the biggest ship was the Seawise Giant an Oil tanker 1,504.1 ft long
It's actually an 'floating mobile air base and air force'...Very impressive ship! Go Navy, greetings from the Netherlands and I hope it visits the North Sea and us low countries once, then I'll certainly be there!
too bad we are in crippling debt and the people are struggling to make ends meet, while the military industrial complex is making profit, profit, profit off of the tax payers.
You can park off anybody's coast without permission? hahahaaa what a fool! Try parking it off China's , Russia's coasts without permission and watch it sink. Fast!
@DIHORY ya that's pretty arrogant. Parking off of a small defensless countries coast is one thing. They never mention going up against another superpower. I'm pretty sure if any large countries go up against each others aircraft carriers they would all be sunk just like all the past wars.
@DIHORY How would it be sunk, pray tell. 80 aircraft on board this super carrier and every single one is going to be superior to anything russia or china has. And have you seen all the ships that in a carrier group? the destroyers will take out anything that the planes cant. Subs? fucked if there are destroyers in the area. Missiles? also fucked if a destroyed is in the area. Nothing can get close enough to the Carrier to hurt it. Its just a fact, don't hate the player, hate the game.
@bigbobkropp You're so dumb it's not even funny! Try to protect this carrier from , let's say 50 incoming missiles launched at once ; it will be sunk in minutes along with the planes and crew on it. Unless you have STATE OF THE ART anti ballistic shild, that carrier will be nothing but a sitting duck. I dare you or them to try acting tough with the russians or the chinese (or the french, english) etc. You think you can rule the seas with a handful of carriers? Try it, let's see.
@DIHORY I dont THINK we can rule the seas with a handful of carriers, I KNOW we can. We have been doing it since the cold war. And we have the best missile defense in the world. We have emp defenses, radar defenses, ballistic defenses, and laser defenses. Launch how the fuck ever many missiles you want, they are going down. And you arent gonna get with in 600 miles of the carrier with out being spotted and annihilated. Again, its just the facts bro. No need to throw shit like a monkey.
@bigbobkropp Modern weaponry for submarines means that they don't have to get anywhere near the carrier, for example the Spearfish could hit your carrier from 30 N.M away. The Tigerfish could do it from 11 NM. Add that to supercav. (up to 200 knots) and it's not rocket science to see that your carriers are just as sinkable as any other ship.
@SuperAncientmariner 30 nautical miles? really? Scary! Dude, those subs will be spotted the second they enter the Destroyers protection bubble around the carrier. The carrier isnt going to be sitting there by itself, it is going to be the center of a strike group, which will also consist of 2 attack subs, and the US has the best sonar on the planet. Your subs last supper will consist of MK 48 torpedoes with a side order of some depth charges.
@bigbobkropp Allow me to tell you a story. I am an ex submariner and not so long ago we were on transit in the Med and one of your carrier groups was exercising with the French navy. For the hell of it, and after getting the OK from higher up, for 2 days we kept station on your carrier 800 yards on his port quarter. We then disengaged and left the scene....undetected. The periscope photos were sent to your Navy dept
@SuperAncientmariner First off unresponded to is not the same as undetected. I guarantee you they were aware of your presence and didn't perceive you as a threat, If that statement is true. Chances are, though, that statement is bullshit.
@SuperAncientmariner Undetected I'm afraid. The Only person on that group who was told was the Admiral, and nobody informed him of a contact. As I said, it was not that long ago and is still subject to our OSA and presumably yours. Shortly after, US ASW proceedures and training was stepped up so if you say it was bullshit, your choice. The USN didn't think so.
@bigbobkropp this is not really true, it wasn't that long ago (last year i think) that a chinese sub popped up from the middle of nowhere right next to an american carrier.
@RickardFriman Yep, USS Kitty Hawk. And despite claims after it happened that they knew it was there, it's funny how it wasn't reported before it popped up. Now folks can say what they like but you don't get a contact without it being reported somewhere along the chain, even in training runs. To get one you don't expect.........!!!
@bigbobkropp It really depends on the captains of both vessels but in most cases youre right. Still, a really sneaky fucker would be able to get a shot on it i reckon , not that one shot would do a hell of alot.
how about "the biggest money hog" in the world ?..all this military bullshit is the reason of the worlds economic crisis..the western world,above all Europe and US have truckloads of money and if military expenses would be cut to 20%-30% of the actual expenses there would be no debt crisis...since 2001 all democracys raised their militarz expense between 70%-80%...for what ?..fighting guerillas and assymetric wars ?..thats bullsit as terrorists are not fought with carriers nor tanks or subs
at 0:45 the guy says "... we can park to any body's coast...", well he's wrong. They could not "park" to Finnish coast because it is simply too big. It wont fit and even if it would it would bee just a really big target for missiles. No offence. Even tough wary cool ship :D
@marcelo22793 Thats why the planes carry missles and torpedoes that can destroy submarines. also to detect them they have sonar pods helicopters drop and detect submarines. so your wrong.
@marcelo22793 actually there are over $300million worth of equipment to make it impossible for a missile or torpedo to sink it...not to mention the 75 planes on board which can intercept the missile or torpedo.
@SuperAncientmariner unless over 30 missiles and torpedoes are fired at the exact same time the ships onboard protection systems can engage them and destroy them. and there are planes CONSTANTLY patrolling a 100 nautical mile radius around the ship...NOTHING can get through that kind of protection, thats why they go alone.
@hotpocketpoison If you choose to believe that, then thats up to you. But SSTDS systems are not carried on carriers (mainly frigates) and the Nimitz's Nixie set-ups can be allowed for. BTW , what goes alone?
@SuperAncientmariner Nimitz class carriers always travel alone, thats what they were designed for. and the missile defense systems that the nimitz class carries can protect it from any known missile or torpedo. and subs can be detected by sub hunters from well beyond effective range and destroyed before they can fire a torpedo.
@hotpocketpoison Always travel alone? Do they now. I don't think so. (And if alone, where do these attending subhunters come in) They do not have a missile defense system capable of anti torpedo defense and the SLQ 25 Nixie is a towed decoy and largely inefective with wake homing and suprcav torps.
@SuperAncientmariner because of the fact that no other ship in the world has an infinite range(over 20 years of constantly moving at max speeds)there is no way another ship could keep up. and anti submarine missiles can be outfitted to either the FA-18 or the EA-18(the EA can also be used as an electronic attack aircraft).
@hotpocketpoison Don't delude yourself. 20 years at max speed. Gosh, the crew will get hungry, and she carries 20 years of aviation fuel does she. A basic of naval warfare is that you keep an equal look on the support groups as you do the carrier. You cant replenish at 36 knots. And your anti sub missiles are only any good if you locate the sub before its fired on your carrier
@SuperAncientmariner and THATS what the planes constantly patrolling a 100 nautical mile radius around the ship is for, no sub can get past that. and the amount of firepower a nimitz class carries with its 85 fixed wing aircraft is more effective than a whole fleet of destroyers. not to mention a fleet is a HUGE target, yet another reason they dont form a battle group around the nimitz. and the nimitz carries about 90 days worth of food for all 6000. MORE than enough to complete any mission.
@hotpocketpoison sorry to be a bore but subs can, and do get through, on exercise (and sometimes not) That I know. Food is between 70 and 90 days. Aviation fuel....Bunkerage on a Nimitz is, if I remember about 3.3 000,000 galls. On average she will use about 7 or 8% of that every 24 hours. So she would have to rebunker Av.fuel every 12-14 days And what do you planes carry to stop a torp..
I don't wish to argue but your carriers can be got at.
@SuperAncientmariner umm...nuclear reactors do not burn any fuel dude, they use uranium. and the planes on the ship do not use full fuel loads and never use afterburners, to conserve fuel several planes fly at less than mach one in a constant circle. and every plane on a carrier can carry anti-sub missiles, even the UH-60 seahawk can cary them, its a requirement. and anti torpedo missiles can be used by the planes as well, seeing as though subs are the largest threat a carrier that size faces.
@hotpocketpoison Now then, just where did I mention anything about what reactors are fuelled by. I was talking aviation fuel bunkerage and in the course of normal flying ops, her aircraft will consume about 8% of aviation fuel every 24 hours. And bear in mind bunkers will be topped long before they get anywhere near empty.
As for aircraft detection, MADs are limited and "needle in a haystack" and Sonar success depends on the ability of submarine COs to negate...cont
@hotpocketpoison ..the effects of the DSSC on which the success of passive sonars depend. Once you start banging away with active sonar, you might as well give up the hunt. There is research into such things as Bernouli's wave detection, wake detection and coolant water heat detection but I'll go into that..
@SuperAncientmariner so basically what your saying is the subs can detect when the ship is looking for them? so why then would the sub risk their lives(if a subs torpedo or missile is hit there is 90% chance they will be spotted and destroyed, the carriers radar,sonar and scout planes can easily detect the smoke trails and the wakes created by missiles or torpedoes, thereby leading directly back to the subs last known location in a matter of seconds...a sub CAN NOT move fast enough to get away).
@hotpocketpoison If they are being hunted using an active system, yes. As for wakes, the modern torpedo does not leave a wake. like in the films.. And at the ranges that Submarine anti ship weaponry is used, there is plenty of time for evasion. Again, the days of the captain watching the kill throught the scope are long gone. (If he did watch it , it would more likely be on a TV monitor)
@SuperAncientmariner even the longest ranged torpedo i can find (type 65 torpedo)only has a range of about 62 miles maximum, still well within range of the scout planes and the sonar devices on the carrier. so that means firing the torpedo(which would most likely be destroyed anyway seeing as though it only travels at 34MPH if you want maximum range)would be sealing your own fate. believe me, the designers of this carrier have taken this into consideration. they are not as dumb as you may think.
@hotpocketpoison Regarding torpedoes. Without going too deeply into it, our older Spearfish could do 41 N.miles @ 60 knots (69.1 MPH) As for destroying the torpedo you need to a) detect it , b) aquire it, and c) have something to destroy it with. Anything fired at the carrier would be from a lot closer, which brings us nicely back to the fact that (and I'm not saying every time) a submarine could get closer than you would believe. An exercise average for position and fire.... 3 from 5
@SuperAncientmariner but the closer they get,the more likely the sub itself will be detected, which would be even worse than just firing a missile at long range. so either way,a sub attack would mean only one thing...one dead sub. and a plane can be brought up from the hanger bay and launched in about 5 minutes,a plane already on the top can be launched in 30 seconds,this would fit very well in the time span between the torpedoes launch and its impact. they actually run certain drills for this.
@hotpocketpoison Yes, the sub MAY be detected and we know that when we volunteer for Submarines. Oh, and subs run drills and exercises too (and Submarine warfare designers are not dumb either) No matter what , the sub still has the advantage.in that it can fire before it's detected.,and in all honesty, at present, there is nothing to destroy the torp. once launched
@SuperAncientmariner but when the sub is detected within the sonars 100nm range then the sub would still have to travel another 40nm to get in range of the carrier, that would easily take more than 15 minutes, by then the sub has been detected, engaged and destroyed.
@hotpocketpoison again, quite possibly.You should say "but If the sub is detected" not when. There is no guarantee that passive will detect a sub. and active sonar alerts the sub. MAD systems have limitations in range.
The thing that worries a sub crew more than anything is another sub. But that is another ball game that I won't go into.
@SuperAncientmariner please, be realistic, you and i both know that there is a greater chance of the sub being detected than it getting in range. you need to realize just how slim the chances are of a sub moving 40 nautical miles into a sonars detection range and not being detected, there is no sub on the planet that can do that and if there is it is most likely american anyway so your point would still be invalid.
@hotpocketpoison I am an ex submariner. They can, they do and they are not just American. In fact , the best ones at avoiding Passive sonar are not American .And active sonar is hit and miss (and before you say anything, I'm not saying they are British. I'm not even saying they are neccessarily nuclear) I've tried to answer your points as much as I'm able. I will leave it there if you don't mind
@hotpocketpoison Actually, any modern diesel-electric sub or any high-tech SSN can get within the no-escape zone of a carrier group, that is the range within which a torpedo will still reach even if the carrier steams away from the torpedo from the moment it is launched. That comes from the fact that a carrier group will always be underway when stalked by the sub, and the movement of water against the hull deafens the hydrophones. The submarine hull is less subjected to this effect...
@hotpocketpoison so a sub can get into position, stalk the group while triangulating the ranges and courses, and fire with impunity pretty much every time. When the launches are detected (usually passive+active, or worse, wakehoming) all the escorts can do is steam away, drop decoy buoys, and fire a snapshot towards the direction of the launch, but the sub will be going deep and away already.
So, i don't like to say it as i work on the surface, but a sub can sink whatever it wants.
@OldDirtyRatbastard the only problem with your statement is that the range of the torpedo is the largest factor. if the sub was following the carrier then the missile would have to travel an even longer distance(seeing as thought he carrier is moving away from it). this would mean that the sub would have to be even closer to the carrier,we are talking about EXTREMELY close engagements. there is no feasible way the sub could do this without being detected by the ships sonar,it just isnt possible.
@hotpocketpoison Hey, you don't take much time to read, do you ? I said "within the no-escape zone of a carrier group, that is the range within which a torpedo will still reach even if the carrier steams away from the torpedo from the moment it is launched"
Theoretically, that no escape zone for a 31kts carrier and a 45kts torpedo with a 22km range is of 10km. That's not an extremely close engagement.If you don't trust my math, do it yourself and you'll see. In practice however, a sub captain...
@hotpocketpoison levels of noise comparable to an electric household fan. Hearing that using the sonar of a destroyer/carrier cruising at 20kts is physically impossible until under ranges like 10km. And again, that is an idealised range, not accounting for the higher performance of most torpedoes and the reaction time of the targeted ship, which can more than double it. So correction, a sub that close means a certainly disabled carrier.
@OldDirtyRatbastard do you even understand how sonar works? it uses sound propagation, by emitting a "ping" and waiting for it to return(kind of like a pulse doppler radar), the level of noise coming from the carrier would have very little effect,if any,on detection. the only way a sub could stay undetected is if its built of sound-absorbant materials, which still does not make the sub invisible, and since the longest range of any torpedo i can find is only about 60km it would not save the sub.
@hotpocketpoison I was talking about passive sonar, that'll be what the escorts detect the sub with. The moment they turn the active on, it means that they know the sub is there and are searching for it. Of course, the sub will hear it and abandon its attack. No ship is ever going to leave the active on, its detection range is about 15km while the ping may be heard far further; basically, it's letting every boat in the radius pinpoint the emitter at all times.
@OldDirtyRatbastard the range of sonar is more than 15km, more like 30km but with pulse compression that range is nearly quadrupled(hence the 100km range). and sound travels about 4 times as fast underwater, so there is no way in hell the sub will be able to withdraw before it is detected and destroyed.
@hotpocketpoison Just like for the passive sonar, that range applies to an ideal situation of water temperature, target aspect, and hull size. Against a submarine presenting its frontal aspect, 15km can be expected, 20km is a high maximum. Pulse compression has the main effect of increasing the accuracy of the sonar's ranging, much less the detection range itself. It's an extremely common processing technique, and its effects are of course included in the maximal range of the system.
@hotpocketpoison And even so, 100km is a ludicrous value. You'd need an iceberg to get such a strong reflection.
The crap are you going on about with the velocity of the ping, why would it matter in any way ? It seems that you're thinking the sub is supposed to escape before the ping can return to the sender, meaning in hundredths of a second... Of course not, the idea is that receiving the successive pings is a direct warning to the sub that a ship is looking for it, and from where...
@hotpocketpoison so it will seek to get out of range as fast as possible before the ASW ship get a suitable torpedo solution to it, and thus it will be forced to stop its attack. The fact that the sub gets warned first does not come from timing but from the inverse square root dispersion characteristics of the sound wave, meaning that the echo will always appear much weaker when returning to sender than what impacted the target.
@OldDirtyRatbastard so if sonar range is 20km at best then how is the sub expected to get close enough to the carrier to detect it? especially with the patrolling aircraft?. the second a prowler picks up any kind of electromagnetic signals that is not the carrier they will spring into action, locate the threat(the sub in this case)and destroy it with anti sub torpedoes. and if the sub wont engage a carrier if it has its sonar on then the carrier basically has an anti-sub shield by leaving it on.
@hotpocketpoison I already replied to that. Neither the sub or the surface ship is going to use the active sonar short of an emergency. For the surface ship, that is when it there are reasons to believe a sub is in the area; for the sub, it is when a quick solution is required. So, all the initial part of a (successful) underwater attack will use the passive sonar exclusively, which is why silence is considered so primordial by designers. The more silent the sub is, the closer it can get to...
@hotpocketpoison its target. When that target is a surface ship, it will invariably make huge amounts of noise (relatively) and will dumb down its own passive sonar because of water flow around the hull, an effect which also occurs much less on submarines. As a result, a sub will easily detect and plot an intercept course for a carrier group from 50km away and more, while it can itself expect to keep its stealth until nearly right under the target.
@hotpocketpoison And the prowler does not carry torpedoes, the ASW helos do that.
Indeed, when a battle formation has no interest in keeping a low profile, they may leave the active on at all times. But it is by no means an anti-sub shield, the pings will rather have the effect of attracting any sub in the area like a buoy. Then, the attack gets somewhat dangerous for the sub since it knows that as soon as it gets under 15km, the chances for its detection become threatening.
@hotpocketpoison So it will creep into a suitable torpedo range (which is often larger than 15km, BTW), launch, and turn around real fast. In practice, it's not much more dangerous for the sub than going up against a passive ship, since the pings provide the sub captain with an immediate firing solution, while he will have to shadow the ship up close for some time to get similar accuracy with only the engine/hull noise.
@OldDirtyRatbastard but destroyers and cruisers carry anti-torpedo and anti-sub munitions. if the sub fired it would be detected very easily,and at that point both the torpedo and the sub will be destroyed by the cruisers or destroyers. with the advent of weapons specially designed for destroying them,subs are better off attacking with missiles than torpedoes,but there are still many anti-missile systems in place in all US ships. in general,subs are no where near as effective as they once were.
In 1984, Prime Minister David Lange barred nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using New Zealand ports or entering New Zealand waters. Under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, territorial sea, land and airspace of New Zealand became nuclear-free zones. This has since become a sacrosanct touchstone of New Zealand foreign policy.[3]
JonoFromNewZealand 2 days ago
new zealand is nuke free the usa cant park any of these ships in our waters legally
JonoFromNewZealand 2 days ago
@JonoFromNewZealand you are dumb as fuck
kamborambo11 2 days ago
@kamborambo11 and why am i dumb as fuck? no US nuke powered war ship has ever come into nz waters since nz became nuke free, the US dosent just get to do what ever it wants whenever it wants, they have to follow the rules just like any other country
JonoFromNewZealand 2 days ago
@ErinandVan These ships can't dock in many Australian ports and the Australian government has the guts to say they can't, funnily enough the americans don't try anything
8497289 1 week ago
Thanks for that. Your carriers are awesome. Yeah! I meant a jealous Brit. Slip of the right index finger. The only thing in the world which impresses me are those most excellent carriers utterly BRILLIANT. I will however gently remind you the Brits invented the carrier catapult launch gear, and the visual landing light. Just make sure you guys keep building them. Best wishes.
gibscot2 1 week ago
Nice but forget the ten Nimitz carriers. Give me the Big E - CVN-65 USS Enterprise! Soon to be retired but still my favorite!
youdoitillwatch 1 week ago
No one can compete with the yanks. I love Aircraft carriers. A jealous Bit.
gibscot2 1 week ago
@gibscot2 I assume you meant to type "A jealous Brit." But you won't have to be jealous for long when you get the HMS Queen Elizabeth. No, she won't be quite the size of the 11 US supercarriers but she'll be a hell of a ship. (Hopefully followed by HMS Prince of Wales.) Personally I'm looking forward to seeing her in action along side the US carriers.
As you Brits would say, "Cheers!"
youdoitillwatch 1 week ago
An aircraft carrier can PRJECT firepower but doesn't carry much in the way of defense weapons. A Battleship still has the most firepower, bar none.
UAL012 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YUSKHAN @YUSKHAN If it won't happen ,you must hang yourself,ok?
Langleykryptos 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Langleykryptos 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You will be watching it on your CNN and Fox news in a couple of mouths when they get bombed and are in the bottom of the ocean with more then 3000 dead
YUSKHAN 2 weeks ago
00:40 See this is what makes American's such assholes.
4161248 3 weeks ago
@4161248 : Have you looked in the mirror lately?
BeulahLips 2 weeks ago
@BeulahLips Have you?
4161248 2 weeks ago
@ispg2992 it did parked on beijing onetime and china can't do any thing about it
shinjiprofile 3 weeks ago
@ispg2992 They have and they did and dont think that china is powerful because all they have at the end of the day is just tofu. You jelous prick
Wawaweewaj 3 weeks ago
its funny "we can park anywere we want to in the world" typical american bullshit, i would like to see this aircraft carrier parked somewere in china :)
ispg2992 3 weeks ago
@ispg2992
no mater you thyink.......there is nothing you can do about it
couchfighter 2 weeks ago
@ispg2992 Yeah it is funny because, we do that EVERY DAY. The USS John C Stennis Carrier Group and about 40 other vessels including Battleships and Submarines are always docked in Hong Kong harbor. Along with any number of Aircraft Carriers at any time. Before posting something that makes you sound like a complete moron, try using Google. Dickhead.
cwilliams3567 1 week ago
@ispg2992 technically speaking it probably can i mean it alone has more power than 80% of the worlds countries
THEDAMNRUSSIANS 5 days ago
bad ass ship.....launches 30 fighters in matter of minutes.....and Iran says their the best lmao
MrGrantwow 4 weeks ago
Sound of asshole! You have just one purpose: To steal oil from arab countries for your fucking Bush-es, first,second,third or who the fuck knows. Assholes! Fuck USA oilers,a bunch of morons!!!
gabrielooss 1 month ago
but the gerald ford will be greater, don´t i would be?
USFCO 1 month ago
@ErinandVan haha can't park it in nz waters we told the yanks to fuck off in the 80's havn't been back since !!!
86nugget19 1 month ago
To those people arguing about being able to take this thing out with little effort. Please stop deluding yourselves. Carriers don't go anywhere alone, they travel in groups which comprise of various different kind of vessels suited for specific roles that keep the fleet safe. A carrier group is just about the most difficult thing in existence on this Earth to take on by force. To try would be suicide unless you have a far more advanced and/or numerically superior attacking force.
TalesOfWar 1 month ago
super confidence will bring down to your knees
by: superman xD
rodyard01 1 month ago
Nah... I'd be impressed if it was a submarine that surfaced and acted as an aircraft carrier then submerged and got out of sight.
Afrocanuk 1 month ago
Comment removed
Afrocanuk 1 month ago
largest american junk ever built, floating fat ass carrier, ability to send thousands of fat ass to anywhere around the world
xilitol 1 month ago
How many homeless Americans can this ship house ???
How many factories instead of this ship can be built ??
How many Americans die freezing to death can reactors of this ship save???
President Eisenhower used to fight the military-industrial complex for EVERY DOLLAR that is put into toys and gadgets for the military is a ONE DOLLAR taken from the homeless and the needy.
A super power on the backs of the homeless can not stand.
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim 1. About 10k people
2. Car?..
3. 0
When building machine or ship like this has a worker right? so at least people has a job, and they will contract them at least 1 - 5 years..
MrJavc1024 1 month ago
And after the 5 years, they are probably fired or laid off ...
And to maintain that odious ship of TONNES and TONNES of fuel, food, and other supplies, the resources will be robbed from someone else's.
For the TONNES of food wasted on that ship, it can feed malnourished American children. For the families that can not afford the cost of heating, they can have those 2 nuclear reactors heating +2000 homes as the video boasts.
It is guns vs books, butter vs ammo, and Israel stands to gain.
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim Remember war is profitable, charity is not.
1JesseW 1 month ago
There comes FAITH and BELIEF in Allah and the Hereafter.
Muslims are the MOST charitable people, not because we seek a return on the donated money in this life, but rather we seek a return from Allah in the Hereafter.
If America wants to solve all of is problems, it should embrace Islam.
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim It doesn't matter what religion you believe in, people need to more kind and charitable.
1JesseW 1 month ago
No, a nation needs a SYSTEM of taking care of the poor. A system based on ABSOLUTE justice that has tenets of criminalizing usury, protecting individuals' rights to affordable prices.. In Islam, no exploitation is allowed by charging more than 10% of the cost and NO monopoly is permitted.
No Islamic Caliphate had a central bank, but it had Bayt Al-Mal (House of Wealth) for ALL the Muslim lands, distributing COLLECTED Zakat (charity) to the poor.
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim About that 5 years you are lucky to have that kind of job a Blue collar job.. in that 5 years you can save money... you know there is no permanent job..
and those people who aboard that ship has a job too. to protect and serve the country and there love ones. they are not wasting tonnes of food there they are people to you know?.. about nuclear power you said. I can't give you reply to that but if you choose Fuel or that? which better? to save money?..
MrJavc1024 1 month ago
There are better jobs than killing people for a coin
In Islam, there is NO standing army as it erodes liberty, wealth, consolidates power, marginalizes people, overrides the laws and commandments of Allah
Why not adopt the Swedish model? All you need to take down an airplane is SAM, shoulder-fired STINGER & such.. and to blow up a tank is an RPG-7.
An armed public is the BEST defense for repelling invaders. Standing armies erode liberty, incite unrest, 1st victim of an empire is citizenship
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim SAMs dont always work and RPG-7 are nothing to modern armour
BMTHmosher 1 month ago
They are powerful enough to install fear into the hears of sex-addicted, vagina-driven, porn-infested foot soldiers of the Western armies.
JesusChristMuslim 1 month ago
@JesusChristMuslim there is a t in hearts. Not really, my bro was a royal marine and the only thing they were scared of was not getting the first steak when they got back. sex is great and the only people who says its not are religious people or people who are virgins.
BMTHmosher 1 month ago
Comment removed
mesa134 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mesa134 yep china has two advanced subs stalking behind your aircraft carriers at anytime i wouldnt be too cocky
mesa134 2 months ago
its the much smaller unknown, 2 the public, weapons that the u.s. has that are scarrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy or awesome. for example...ufos reported or seen r actually u.s.a. weapons
hugomgabaldon 2 months ago
@hugomgabaldon The "Glocke" was an german "Wunderwaffe" it looks like a typical U.F.O
The rocket, the ufo, the nuke are all german weapons ;)
Wonnex130 2 months ago
I would suggest with our ASTUTE class hunter killers you ask for permission before trying to park the ship of our coast.
dustyRN 2 months ago
I'm let me remind you dumb ass you ain't winning this war either USA force there for over 10 years too did the change any thing??? maybe but as soon as they going to pool out every there is going to be another war cause Taliban are going to come back !!! so shot your hole
1kyzya1 2 months ago
@1kyzya1 lol awww look who's mad
IranOveraDeer 2 months ago
So keep building your super carriers that cost million and millions of dollars we just going to bild anti carriers torpedoes and rockets that cost millions dollars less cause we bild to protect our country not to atack others like you Americans think its always cheaper to bild an RPGs rocket than a tank I think you got my point
1kyzya1 2 months ago
Damn reliable that people can tryst it. your f-22 was destroyed by t-50 and our weapons if youll do reaserch is to protect not for atac small weak countries you got that now do the math why not even you guys could not attack Russia cause it no one ever hade a successful war with us
1kyzya1 2 months ago
@1kyzya1 you Russians were certainly successful in Afghanistan. With a little help from Americans, a band of goat herders with AKs kicked your ass.
IranOveraDeer 2 months ago
Ok sure 70s sound good at list our torpedoes from 70 that are able to destroy your carriers can go up to 300 miles underwater you guys steal dreaming of it our weapons don't need propaganda every one knows it's easy and so
1kyzya1 2 months ago
These toys are beautiful. They will also soon be obsolete. The world is changing. Everything's going electronic. A team of hackers in a room somewhere could damage a nation very badly without a shot fired. War is primarily economic in origin and cause. These toys will still be used for awhile. I doubt they will be needed for their entire expected service life though. It's the economic war we are losing. Thanks to far right politicians commiting treason and selling out the country.
heartfire451 2 months ago
Hostile sub won't get close enough to fire at it.
Myanleader 2 months ago
This guy forget somting what hes blubbering what ever what country??? he can invade when ever presedent says Go and noting cant stop him??? Not even a balistic missle whit 8 warheads... he sow funny i think he at 2 much burgers and halusinating from it... propaganda
caspernok 2 months ago
Try to park it on the Russian coast with out their permission!!!!
1kyzya1 3 months ago
@1kyzya1 There is nothing in Russia that the U.S. is interested in; plus, what are they gunna do, sink it with their rusting 70's technology?
DontTreadOnMe213 2 months ago
@1kyzya1 Russia can destroy this ship in 1 minute from distance 2 000 km end speed 8 000 km /hr
Zbyszkoz 2 months ago
"thats suonds like freedom"
freedom for who?
niinja2 3 months ago
@ErinandVan
> no one would be stupid enough to say no
Russian missile cruisers and a fleet of submarines don't agree with you :)
kaplich 3 months ago
HAHAHHAAA!! America, fuck yeah!
TheInnerDEAMON 3 months ago
A paper-tiger shows his claws ! I'm kidding that a real tiger , men !
Watch out China-men, stay on your border !
huynhminhtri 3 months ago
Sadly they're easy targets for Chinese ballistic missiles & Russian cruise missiles.
FantasticBob7000 3 months ago
If the other guys have got one too...
Just *how big* did you say this planet is?
sgdeluxedoc 3 months ago
Why do idiots have to make dumb arse comments. This is a interesting story about something awesome, I come here to view and and place logical comments not stupid idiotic comments. Grow up children.
Oh Yeah this Ship is mind boggeling.
DKashman 3 months ago in playlist navy
This has been flagged as spam show
Who do you think you are? A bully? You can park it anywhere in the world without permission? FUCK YOU! Let the US decline and die.
Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 3 months ago
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh lol, yea they can just like anybody can, but there may be consequences with that....
parkzonecorsairtips 3 months ago
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh
Why are you hating on the guy who just posted this video...
loliamapie 3 months ago
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh dream on scumbag
ron2ocean 3 months ago
@ron2ocean Lots of countries want to see the US decline and fall. Just a question of time.
Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 3 months ago
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh It's okay, let them continue thinking that it's safe..lol ;) ..It's not safe..
DeltaReconnaissance 3 months ago
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh Alright, then get of this American built and owned website and quit using our innovations, the interent. See, there are too many anit American morons on in this world who continue to blab about U.S. achievements and power, yet they sit here (like you) and enjoy American innovation. Without the U.S. you'd be no where. Go home little kid.
DontTreadOnMe213 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh Alright, then get off this American built and owned website and quit using our innovations, the interent. See, there are too many anit American morons in this world who continue to blab about U.S. achievements and power, yet they sit here (like you) and enjoy American innovation. Without the U.S. you'd be no where. Go home little kid.
DontTreadOnMe213 2 months ago
Because determining the torpedo's pattern accurately and in advance is close to impossible and maneuvering in it to lay preventive decoys is time-consuming and obviously dangerous, they are only dropped after an eventual lock on.
OldDirtyRatbastard 3 months ago
a towed emitter. Neither is close to 100% effective. It is also the reason why reverse turning is not a realistic option : you don't take precious time off your escape from the pattern to disturb a torpedo that may well not lock onto you. Besides, the uselessness of that maneuver doesn't come from timing but from the widening of the wake's disturbances, they become 100s of metres large after less than a minute, meaning that a reverse turn will only have the effect of erasing the traces of any...
OldDirtyRatbastard 3 months ago
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
levierdragon 4 months ago
for the usual passive/active mix, the ship will have to lay active decoys and get as far away as possible from them not to present a larger target, but to be careful in its escape timing to cut the engines and drop passive decoys when the passive torps get there. The danger resides in either not making noise but staying too close for the actives to lock on, or getting away but by making enough noise late enough to attract the passives.
And if the torps are wakehoming, there is no decoying them.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
(hom many active, how many passive, what's the course of each), and it starts laying down decoys in a specific plan to fool the torps away from its own hull. The ship also has to put distance between it and the decoys, since between an extremely loud decoy and the ship's engine/a thick bubble field and the hull, the torpedo may still choose the ship if both are close enough.
The actual doctrine for evasion is specific to each navy and is classified, but we can be sure of some general things :
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
By copying the noise of a ship's engine for passive torps, or making a bubble screen for active ones, but torpedoes are programmed so that if they successfully home into a target but go "through it" without exploding, they resume their searching pattern. Since that is likely to happen with a decoy, the ship must have gotten out of that pattern before the torp starts searching again.
So basically, what happens when a surface ship detects a launch is that it analyses the composition of the salvo
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
This Punk said they can be anyway they want to be yea right Try one day to take your big ass warship in Russia border see how they gonna destroy in one second!!
Airforcebz 4 months ago
Now, getting these parameters from simple bearings and with sufficient accuracy requires a lot of triangulation, which is why a submarine may spend half an hour maneuvering around target, listening, in order to compute a suitable solution.
For the surface ship responding to a torpedo launch, it gets ONE chance to fire on this bearing without all the additional parameters, meaning a "dumb" torpedo which goes straight ahead and hopes to lock on on the way, aka a snapshot.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
...possible, then breaks contact and prepares to evade the unavoidable counterattack. The scariest weapon that can be used against a sub is a rocket-torpedo hybrid, basically a flying torpedo that drops into the water close to the sub's location and starts tracking. However, thanks to deep diving and stealth, a submarine is quite survivable.
Homing torpedoes have made the submarine the greatest threat there is to surface ships since the 50's, and they are as efficient now than always.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
the yamato was the biggest warship in the world
Eorthil 4 months ago
and what is jamie fox doing there @ 05:37 !?
masterfistlord 4 months ago
it would be wise to invent warningpods for warships. consisting of a sonar scanning for torpedo signatures and a launcher wich holds supercavitating interceptors.
masterfistlord 4 months ago
worlds most powewfull ship that was nearly blown up by a suicide bomer in a dingy so powerfull......
AJM7finals 4 months ago
The biggest pirate ship in the world....
Straylight100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We can park off anybody's coast without permission"? Hah, the arrogance of it! No asking permission of the country in question then? If I were PM I'd want them to ask my permission, or else we do have several Trident subs hanging around.
Bubo25 4 months ago
the biggest warship ever built was the bismarck but she was sunk in may 1941
ww2guy100 4 months ago
@ww2guy100 I think the Japanese might just dispute that. Look up Musashi and Yamato..
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner no the bismarck was 92 feet longer
ww2guy100 4 months ago
@ww2guy100 Don't think so. Bismark was 823 ft and Yamato/Musashi were 839ft. HMS Hood was even longer at 860 ft. Beam of Bismark was 118ft against 127ft for Yamato. And Bismark displaced 55,000 tons at full load compared to 71,659 for Yamato.
You might care to chaeck you source.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner i know but the yamato was 863 and 10 in by the way that was my little brother is is 8 and is convinced that the bismarck is the biggest ship in the history of mankind the biggest ship was the Seawise Giant an Oil tanker 1,504.1 ft long
ww2guy100 4 months ago
@ww2guy100 lol, right. That would explain it.:o)
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
It's actually an 'floating mobile air base and air force'...Very impressive ship! Go Navy, greetings from the Netherlands and I hope it visits the North Sea and us low countries once, then I'll certainly be there!
Change6609 4 months ago
too bad we are in crippling debt and the people are struggling to make ends meet, while the military industrial complex is making profit, profit, profit off of the tax payers.
maalaea 4 months ago
the US is full of it.
BatusaiJack 4 months ago
You can park off anybody's coast without permission? hahahaaa what a fool! Try parking it off China's , Russia's coasts without permission and watch it sink. Fast!
DIHORY 4 months ago
@DIHORY ya that's pretty arrogant. Parking off of a small defensless countries coast is one thing. They never mention going up against another superpower. I'm pretty sure if any large countries go up against each others aircraft carriers they would all be sunk just like all the past wars.
callscott1 4 months ago
@DIHORY How would it be sunk, pray tell. 80 aircraft on board this super carrier and every single one is going to be superior to anything russia or china has. And have you seen all the ships that in a carrier group? the destroyers will take out anything that the planes cant. Subs? fucked if there are destroyers in the area. Missiles? also fucked if a destroyed is in the area. Nothing can get close enough to the Carrier to hurt it. Its just a fact, don't hate the player, hate the game.
bigbobkropp 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp You're so dumb it's not even funny! Try to protect this carrier from , let's say 50 incoming missiles launched at once ; it will be sunk in minutes along with the planes and crew on it. Unless you have STATE OF THE ART anti ballistic shild, that carrier will be nothing but a sitting duck. I dare you or them to try acting tough with the russians or the chinese (or the french, english) etc. You think you can rule the seas with a handful of carriers? Try it, let's see.
DIHORY 4 months ago
@DIHORY I dont THINK we can rule the seas with a handful of carriers, I KNOW we can. We have been doing it since the cold war. And we have the best missile defense in the world. We have emp defenses, radar defenses, ballistic defenses, and laser defenses. Launch how the fuck ever many missiles you want, they are going down. And you arent gonna get with in 600 miles of the carrier with out being spotted and annihilated. Again, its just the facts bro. No need to throw shit like a monkey.
bigbobkropp 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp Say no to drugs! :)
DIHORY 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DIHORY Is that the best you got? Weak, bro.
bigbobkropp 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp Modern weaponry for submarines means that they don't have to get anywhere near the carrier, for example the Spearfish could hit your carrier from 30 N.M away. The Tigerfish could do it from 11 NM. Add that to supercav. (up to 200 knots) and it's not rocket science to see that your carriers are just as sinkable as any other ship.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner 30 nautical miles? really? Scary! Dude, those subs will be spotted the second they enter the Destroyers protection bubble around the carrier. The carrier isnt going to be sitting there by itself, it is going to be the center of a strike group, which will also consist of 2 attack subs, and the US has the best sonar on the planet. Your subs last supper will consist of MK 48 torpedoes with a side order of some depth charges.
bigbobkropp 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp Allow me to tell you a story. I am an ex submariner and not so long ago we were on transit in the Med and one of your carrier groups was exercising with the French navy. For the hell of it, and after getting the OK from higher up, for 2 days we kept station on your carrier 800 yards on his port quarter. We then disengaged and left the scene....undetected. The periscope photos were sent to your Navy dept
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner First off unresponded to is not the same as undetected. I guarantee you they were aware of your presence and didn't perceive you as a threat, If that statement is true. Chances are, though, that statement is bullshit.
bigbobkropp 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Undetected I'm afraid. The Only person on that group who was told was the Admiral, and nobody informed him of a contact. As I said, it was not that long ago and is still subject to our OSA and presumably yours. Shortly after, US ASW proceedures and training was stepped up so if you say it was bullshit, your choice. The USN didn't think so.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp this is not really true, it wasn't that long ago (last year i think) that a chinese sub popped up from the middle of nowhere right next to an american carrier.
RickardFriman 4 months ago
@RickardFriman Yep, USS Kitty Hawk. And despite claims after it happened that they knew it was there, it's funny how it wasn't reported before it popped up. Now folks can say what they like but you don't get a contact without it being reported somewhere along the chain, even in training runs. To get one you don't expect.........!!!
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@bigbobkropp It really depends on the captains of both vessels but in most cases youre right. Still, a really sneaky fucker would be able to get a shot on it i reckon , not that one shot would do a hell of alot.
Antifaith29 4 months ago
how about "the biggest money hog" in the world ?..all this military bullshit is the reason of the worlds economic crisis..the western world,above all Europe and US have truckloads of money and if military expenses would be cut to 20%-30% of the actual expenses there would be no debt crisis...since 2001 all democracys raised their militarz expense between 70%-80%...for what ?..fighting guerillas and assymetric wars ?..thats bullsit as terrorists are not fought with carriers nor tanks or subs
chris99103 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We sail where we damn well please- oggicial answer to Moamar Gaddaffi's demand that the uSNavy not cross hs "line od death"/
rigamarrow 4 months ago
so China's Navy sucks right now I guess
babykevinxoxo 4 months ago in playlist BS That i find interesting...
at 0:45 the guy says "... we can park to any body's coast...", well he's wrong. They could not "park" to Finnish coast because it is simply too big. It wont fit and even if it would it would bee just a really big target for missiles. No offence. Even tough wary cool ship :D
MrFinCraft 5 months ago
I think it would be a blast working on a ship like that!!
botchedonce 5 months ago
wat the f...anybody's coast without permission?
laromanesca 5 months ago
a little sub can sink it
marcelo22793 5 months ago
@marcelo22793 Thats why the planes carry missles and torpedoes that can destroy submarines. also to detect them they have sonar pods helicopters drop and detect submarines. so your wrong.
TheFreakyReject 4 months ago
@marcelo22793 actually there are over $300million worth of equipment to make it impossible for a missile or torpedo to sink it...not to mention the 75 planes on board which can intercept the missile or torpedo.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison The word "Impossible" does not exist where missiles /torpedoes are concerned. She can be hit, she can be sunk.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner unless over 30 missiles and torpedoes are fired at the exact same time the ships onboard protection systems can engage them and destroy them. and there are planes CONSTANTLY patrolling a 100 nautical mile radius around the ship...NOTHING can get through that kind of protection, thats why they go alone.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
Comment removed
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison If you choose to believe that, then thats up to you. But SSTDS systems are not carried on carriers (mainly frigates) and the Nimitz's Nixie set-ups can be allowed for. BTW , what goes alone?
Believe me, subs can get through.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Nimitz class carriers always travel alone, thats what they were designed for. and the missile defense systems that the nimitz class carries can protect it from any known missile or torpedo. and subs can be detected by sub hunters from well beyond effective range and destroyed before they can fire a torpedo.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Always travel alone? Do they now. I don't think so. (And if alone, where do these attending subhunters come in) They do not have a missile defense system capable of anti torpedo defense and the SLQ 25 Nixie is a towed decoy and largely inefective with wake homing and suprcav torps.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner because of the fact that no other ship in the world has an infinite range(over 20 years of constantly moving at max speeds)there is no way another ship could keep up. and anti submarine missiles can be outfitted to either the FA-18 or the EA-18(the EA can also be used as an electronic attack aircraft).
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Don't delude yourself. 20 years at max speed. Gosh, the crew will get hungry, and she carries 20 years of aviation fuel does she. A basic of naval warfare is that you keep an equal look on the support groups as you do the carrier. You cant replenish at 36 knots. And your anti sub missiles are only any good if you locate the sub before its fired on your carrier
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner and THATS what the planes constantly patrolling a 100 nautical mile radius around the ship is for, no sub can get past that. and the amount of firepower a nimitz class carries with its 85 fixed wing aircraft is more effective than a whole fleet of destroyers. not to mention a fleet is a HUGE target, yet another reason they dont form a battle group around the nimitz. and the nimitz carries about 90 days worth of food for all 6000. MORE than enough to complete any mission.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison sorry to be a bore but subs can, and do get through, on exercise (and sometimes not) That I know. Food is between 70 and 90 days. Aviation fuel....Bunkerage on a Nimitz is, if I remember about 3.3 000,000 galls. On average she will use about 7 or 8% of that every 24 hours. So she would have to rebunker Av.fuel every 12-14 days And what do you planes carry to stop a torp..
I don't wish to argue but your carriers can be got at.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner umm...nuclear reactors do not burn any fuel dude, they use uranium. and the planes on the ship do not use full fuel loads and never use afterburners, to conserve fuel several planes fly at less than mach one in a constant circle. and every plane on a carrier can carry anti-sub missiles, even the UH-60 seahawk can cary them, its a requirement. and anti torpedo missiles can be used by the planes as well, seeing as though subs are the largest threat a carrier that size faces.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Now then, just where did I mention anything about what reactors are fuelled by. I was talking aviation fuel bunkerage and in the course of normal flying ops, her aircraft will consume about 8% of aviation fuel every 24 hours. And bear in mind bunkers will be topped long before they get anywhere near empty.
As for aircraft detection, MADs are limited and "needle in a haystack" and Sonar success depends on the ability of submarine COs to negate...cont
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison ..the effects of the DSSC on which the success of passive sonars depend. Once you start banging away with active sonar, you might as well give up the hunt. There is research into such things as Bernouli's wave detection, wake detection and coolant water heat detection but I'll go into that..
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner LOL that should , of course, read "...but I'll not go into that"
Dipping sonobouys can be heard entering the water and also operating, so the subs are wise to them being deployed.
Subs can be, and are, located but it is by no means a forgone conclusion.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner so basically what your saying is the subs can detect when the ship is looking for them? so why then would the sub risk their lives(if a subs torpedo or missile is hit there is 90% chance they will be spotted and destroyed, the carriers radar,sonar and scout planes can easily detect the smoke trails and the wakes created by missiles or torpedoes, thereby leading directly back to the subs last known location in a matter of seconds...a sub CAN NOT move fast enough to get away).
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison If they are being hunted using an active system, yes. As for wakes, the modern torpedo does not leave a wake. like in the films.. And at the ranges that Submarine anti ship weaponry is used, there is plenty of time for evasion. Again, the days of the captain watching the kill throught the scope are long gone. (If he did watch it , it would more likely be on a TV monitor)
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner even the longest ranged torpedo i can find (type 65 torpedo)only has a range of about 62 miles maximum, still well within range of the scout planes and the sonar devices on the carrier. so that means firing the torpedo(which would most likely be destroyed anyway seeing as though it only travels at 34MPH if you want maximum range)would be sealing your own fate. believe me, the designers of this carrier have taken this into consideration. they are not as dumb as you may think.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Regarding torpedoes. Without going too deeply into it, our older Spearfish could do 41 N.miles @ 60 knots (69.1 MPH) As for destroying the torpedo you need to a) detect it , b) aquire it, and c) have something to destroy it with. Anything fired at the carrier would be from a lot closer, which brings us nicely back to the fact that (and I'm not saying every time) a submarine could get closer than you would believe. An exercise average for position and fire.... 3 from 5
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner but the closer they get,the more likely the sub itself will be detected, which would be even worse than just firing a missile at long range. so either way,a sub attack would mean only one thing...one dead sub. and a plane can be brought up from the hanger bay and launched in about 5 minutes,a plane already on the top can be launched in 30 seconds,this would fit very well in the time span between the torpedoes launch and its impact. they actually run certain drills for this.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Yes, the sub MAY be detected and we know that when we volunteer for Submarines. Oh, and subs run drills and exercises too (and Submarine warfare designers are not dumb either) No matter what , the sub still has the advantage.in that it can fire before it's detected.,and in all honesty, at present, there is nothing to destroy the torp. once launched
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner but when the sub is detected within the sonars 100nm range then the sub would still have to travel another 40nm to get in range of the carrier, that would easily take more than 15 minutes, by then the sub has been detected, engaged and destroyed.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison again, quite possibly.You should say "but If the sub is detected" not when. There is no guarantee that passive will detect a sub. and active sonar alerts the sub. MAD systems have limitations in range.
The thing that worries a sub crew more than anything is another sub. But that is another ball game that I won't go into.
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner please, be realistic, you and i both know that there is a greater chance of the sub being detected than it getting in range. you need to realize just how slim the chances are of a sub moving 40 nautical miles into a sonars detection range and not being detected, there is no sub on the planet that can do that and if there is it is most likely american anyway so your point would still be invalid.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison I am an ex submariner. They can, they do and they are not just American. In fact , the best ones at avoiding Passive sonar are not American .And active sonar is hit and miss (and before you say anything, I'm not saying they are British. I'm not even saying they are neccessarily nuclear) I've tried to answer your points as much as I'm able. I will leave it there if you don't mind
SuperAncientmariner 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Actually, any modern diesel-electric sub or any high-tech SSN can get within the no-escape zone of a carrier group, that is the range within which a torpedo will still reach even if the carrier steams away from the torpedo from the moment it is launched. That comes from the fact that a carrier group will always be underway when stalked by the sub, and the movement of water against the hull deafens the hydrophones. The submarine hull is less subjected to this effect...
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison so a sub can get into position, stalk the group while triangulating the ranges and courses, and fire with impunity pretty much every time. When the launches are detected (usually passive+active, or worse, wakehoming) all the escorts can do is steam away, drop decoy buoys, and fire a snapshot towards the direction of the launch, but the sub will be going deep and away already.
So, i don't like to say it as i work on the surface, but a sub can sink whatever it wants.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@OldDirtyRatbastard the only problem with your statement is that the range of the torpedo is the largest factor. if the sub was following the carrier then the missile would have to travel an even longer distance(seeing as thought he carrier is moving away from it). this would mean that the sub would have to be even closer to the carrier,we are talking about EXTREMELY close engagements. there is no feasible way the sub could do this without being detected by the ships sonar,it just isnt possible.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Hey, you don't take much time to read, do you ? I said "within the no-escape zone of a carrier group, that is the range within which a torpedo will still reach even if the carrier steams away from the torpedo from the moment it is launched"
Theoretically, that no escape zone for a 31kts carrier and a 45kts torpedo with a 22km range is of 10km. That's not an extremely close engagement.If you don't trust my math, do it yourself and you'll see. In practice however, a sub captain...
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison levels of noise comparable to an electric household fan. Hearing that using the sonar of a destroyer/carrier cruising at 20kts is physically impossible until under ranges like 10km. And again, that is an idealised range, not accounting for the higher performance of most torpedoes and the reaction time of the targeted ship, which can more than double it. So correction, a sub that close means a certainly disabled carrier.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@OldDirtyRatbastard do you even understand how sonar works? it uses sound propagation, by emitting a "ping" and waiting for it to return(kind of like a pulse doppler radar), the level of noise coming from the carrier would have very little effect,if any,on detection. the only way a sub could stay undetected is if its built of sound-absorbant materials, which still does not make the sub invisible, and since the longest range of any torpedo i can find is only about 60km it would not save the sub.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison I was talking about passive sonar, that'll be what the escorts detect the sub with. The moment they turn the active on, it means that they know the sub is there and are searching for it. Of course, the sub will hear it and abandon its attack. No ship is ever going to leave the active on, its detection range is about 15km while the ping may be heard far further; basically, it's letting every boat in the radius pinpoint the emitter at all times.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@OldDirtyRatbastard the range of sonar is more than 15km, more like 30km but with pulse compression that range is nearly quadrupled(hence the 100km range). and sound travels about 4 times as fast underwater, so there is no way in hell the sub will be able to withdraw before it is detected and destroyed.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Just like for the passive sonar, that range applies to an ideal situation of water temperature, target aspect, and hull size. Against a submarine presenting its frontal aspect, 15km can be expected, 20km is a high maximum. Pulse compression has the main effect of increasing the accuracy of the sonar's ranging, much less the detection range itself. It's an extremely common processing technique, and its effects are of course included in the maximal range of the system.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison And even so, 100km is a ludicrous value. You'd need an iceberg to get such a strong reflection.
The crap are you going on about with the velocity of the ping, why would it matter in any way ? It seems that you're thinking the sub is supposed to escape before the ping can return to the sender, meaning in hundredths of a second... Of course not, the idea is that receiving the successive pings is a direct warning to the sub that a ship is looking for it, and from where...
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison so it will seek to get out of range as fast as possible before the ASW ship get a suitable torpedo solution to it, and thus it will be forced to stop its attack. The fact that the sub gets warned first does not come from timing but from the inverse square root dispersion characteristics of the sound wave, meaning that the echo will always appear much weaker when returning to sender than what impacted the target.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@OldDirtyRatbastard so if sonar range is 20km at best then how is the sub expected to get close enough to the carrier to detect it? especially with the patrolling aircraft?. the second a prowler picks up any kind of electromagnetic signals that is not the carrier they will spring into action, locate the threat(the sub in this case)and destroy it with anti sub torpedoes. and if the sub wont engage a carrier if it has its sonar on then the carrier basically has an anti-sub shield by leaving it on.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison I already replied to that. Neither the sub or the surface ship is going to use the active sonar short of an emergency. For the surface ship, that is when it there are reasons to believe a sub is in the area; for the sub, it is when a quick solution is required. So, all the initial part of a (successful) underwater attack will use the passive sonar exclusively, which is why silence is considered so primordial by designers. The more silent the sub is, the closer it can get to...
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison its target. When that target is a surface ship, it will invariably make huge amounts of noise (relatively) and will dumb down its own passive sonar because of water flow around the hull, an effect which also occurs much less on submarines. As a result, a sub will easily detect and plot an intercept course for a carrier group from 50km away and more, while it can itself expect to keep its stealth until nearly right under the target.
Em signals ? From a sub ? Won't happen...
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison And the prowler does not carry torpedoes, the ASW helos do that.
Indeed, when a battle formation has no interest in keeping a low profile, they may leave the active on at all times. But it is by no means an anti-sub shield, the pings will rather have the effect of attracting any sub in the area like a buoy. Then, the attack gets somewhat dangerous for the sub since it knows that as soon as it gets under 15km, the chances for its detection become threatening.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@hotpocketpoison So it will creep into a suitable torpedo range (which is often larger than 15km, BTW), launch, and turn around real fast. In practice, it's not much more dangerous for the sub than going up against a passive ship, since the pings provide the sub captain with an immediate firing solution, while he will have to shadow the ship up close for some time to get similar accuracy with only the engine/hull noise.
OldDirtyRatbastard 4 months ago
@OldDirtyRatbastard but destroyers and cruisers carry anti-torpedo and anti-sub munitions. if the sub fired it would be detected very easily,and at that point both the torpedo and the sub will be destroyed by the cruisers or destroyers. with the advent of weapons specially designed for destroying them,subs are better off attacking with missiles than torpedoes,but there are still many anti-missile systems in place in all US ships. in general,subs are no where near as effective as they once were.
hotpocketpoison 4 months ago