LOL just watched the entire video. Ok, it has defences against cruise missiles. LOL. The Sunburst is not just any missile, it is a MACH 20 (yes, 20 times the speed of sound) missile that flies under the radar hugging the ground/waters. The Russian navy is armed to the teeth with these missiles, they have thousands of them. There is a reason America grovels before Russia and asks their permission before waging any wars. Oh and apparently that general in the vid has never heard of submarines
Someone really needs to send these old generals in the us armed forces that Carriers are now OBSOLETE. Ever heard of the Sunburst missile, developed by Russia? It is called the 'carrier killing' missile for a very fucking good reason. This missile is the reason Russia decommisioned and sold off all her carriers and now only has one. It's not because they cannot afford carriers (they can, Russia is RICH) nor that they cannot build them, but that they know carriers have no defence against Sunburst
@Andhaira are you kidding me? russia is in a bigger shithole than usa is, trust me ive lived in russian for 15 years since i was born. theres poverty everywhere you look, the government barely has any money and the government is shit. the only thing russia got on usa is the army, their army is bigger
I thought it could carry 100 aircraft, is the reduction for safety & survivability?
Even if it only carries 45 strike aircraft all ten together makes a formidable concentration of airpower - every 3rd & 2rd world nation must frame its policy by what the US CG's are doing at sea. I just wish the US would use them to cut out the heart of the Saudi-Binladen crime families & Pakistan's ISI for 9/11.
Got to respect them for naming the Class after Nimitz - who saved the US in WW2 from invasion!
Sad for the Americans that Swedish Submarine Gotland class can sink that ship and slip away without being noticed. They had an exercise toghether with and the Eisenhower was "sunk" by the Swedish sub.
Well if theres one thing i have to hand to America is that there military is fucking BEAST. If i ran a country i would do just a bit diffrently , you know help out the citizens of my own land, my own people, instead of letting them starve and rott, lol either way though, at least there protected, from enemies , not there own government LMAO
"Why are there huge holes built into the hull". Elevators transport aircraft and supplies to and from the flight deck using these. A section of the flight deck above decends to the hanger underneath and aircraft are then fed in and out. 1.54 you can see the darker patches on the deck - go to bestshipmodels and look at the nimitz drawing
The Enterprise and its 8 nuclear reactors are due to be decommissioned next year at a HUGE cost, but rumors have it that the US government is planning to save that money by sinking the Enterprise in a false flag attack in the Persian Gulf. The onboard personnel is in grave danger.
@sbugiardo Paying off all the insurances from the dead sailors is about 10 times the cost to decommission the reactors. Add that with billions dollars worth of planes and equipment lost, and you realize how silly that rumor is.
@player276 let us put aside the insurance (which btw is optional) for a moment, and consider the scenario where the aircrafts are flying and an aircraft carrier about to sink and is abandoned by its personnel... if you plan this thing, you'd do it to your advantage don't you think?
I have no clue on how much it costs to dispose of the 8 reactors onboard totalling 210MW, but the average single US civilian nuclear reactor costs $300.000.000 in decommissioning.
Who cares how much is costs, it's the US military... when have they ever care how much things cost? they already have a program for decommissioning aging naval reactors, the first carrier is set for 2013.
How would they make an excuse for removing all the personnel from the ship, have all the aircraft vacate to other bases and blow it up? "oh we lost a super carrier to a surprise attack, but no one died and we sortied 100s of aircraft before the attack for no reason." no
@Chinomareno nuclear reactors operate within a narrow range of parameters, outside of which the reactor becomes unstable and quickly degenerates. If a reactor onboard the USS Enterprise reaches that state because of an alleged "terrorist infiltration" or because a critical system is damaged by a missile, there will be time to save the more expensive equipment and at least the high ranking personnel (cannon fodder will probably just become radiation fodder).
Or they could not waste their time or money doing something so retarded. The DOD does not give a shit how much money it spends, they should but they don't. Logistics, engineering and munitions support for the ship are worth more to the contractors that eventually give their colluding officers cushy jobs in the defense industry, again no reason to care about a bill they are not paying.
@Chinomareno must a foreigner tell you how the US politics and defence budget work? The DOD is not reimbursed for its expenses: it is allocated money in advance. The DOD does not make decisions: it is just a tool of the government.
In your nation a single schytzophrenic man is in charge of half the world military might, which he has used without congress approval. The US have almost become a dictatorship.
That doesn't even contradict what I said moron... The DOD is allocated money, how does that mean they are not responsible for it's spent on? Do they not procure weapon systems? Run the tenders contractors apply for? Apply for their own budget? You are a fucking idiot.
You've assumed I'm from the US. This is probably because you have this pathetic stereotype of Americans in your head that let's you be a patronizing idiot when speaking to one. Go back to Alex Jones...
@Chinomareno The onboard personnel is in grave danger anyway, because some years ago the US navy simulated an attack to Iran and lost in the few hours an aircraft carrier and several other ships: google "millennium challenge 2002".
Still the US government is not new to false flags and dirty tricks (check out Osama's killers downed in the biggest heli incident in Afghanistan few weeks after the alleged capture of the alleged terrorist).
The millennium challenge isn't a secret or anything, the blue force was embarrassingly taken apart by a marine commander temporarily brought from retirement using irregular forces(not Iran...) with low tech solutions. If the US attacks any competent and sizable military like Iran it will suffer real war time losses, there will be at the very least 10s of thousands of dead US sailors and soldiers.
Doesn't mean anything you've said is remotely believable though.
@vycka1234 If the ship can't go somewhere herself then there still isn't any part of the world it can't put it's airplanes. If a Nimitz class carrier doesn't get max points for range, I don't know what weapon would.
@parko456 I would guess that because of it's size, it can't go close to shore in country's that have a lot of little or big islands in there coast example Finland.
Expensive as in the US has 11 and they cost 4.5 to 6 billion initially with a daily cost of 1-2 million....each. Clearly air/naval power is of the utmost importance
@hotdogh20 bigger a bomber? the biggest one is the b52 which carriers 31,500 kg the carrier has 90 aircraft most of which are f18's which carry 8,050 kg times this by 75 and you get 603,750 kg hmmm only 572,250kg more lol. This of course does not add the ships weapons and reloads.
@PieterStraetemans a bombay on a nuclear powered ship is far away as possible but is a missile hits there the ship is down thats wot happend to HMS hood in ww2 the ship was said to be unsinkable untill a round hit the bombay
if you think they scrapped the Enterprise class nuclear carrier just to build an equally un-manuverable Nimitz class carrier, you are in for a rude awakening when the real naval battle breaks out. Nimitz class carrier maneuverability triumph pretty much every other aircraft carrier class out there, including many not even half of its weight.
@letmewatchvideodamn Wait until 2015 and then the USS Enterprise (CVN-65)will be decommissioned and be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.
Advanced Arresting Gear, Automation (Reducing crew size), RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow, AN/SPY-3 DBR, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (No steam catapults), A1B nuclear reactor, stealthier features, and the ability to launch "F/A-18 Super Hornets", "EA-6 Growler", F-35C Lightning II, and other aircraft.
For those that are griping about the range rating. It might be able to keep going for a long time but you still have to stock it with supplies for the sailors and other supplies for its operations.
The scoring system for this show is completely retarded. Of course an aircraft carrier is going to be expensive, no such thing as a WalMart Nimitz Class. And why does an aircraft carrier have to be manuverable. Also, how to you give a ship that has unlimited range for 25 years straight, a 4 star!?!?!!?
@Slash396 personnel require food and i dont think the ship can store 25 years worth of it on board. this is probably why it only got 4 stars for range :)
@Intaminator It's not the ship that people are scared of, it's whos on it (Navy SEALS, and some of the worlds best pilots) and whats on it (lots of planes)
@Assassinate4u Which wpuld be stupid because all ships can only operate in water, that's the point of the ship. I think the researchers for this show are lazy, didn't do research and know nothing about the military.
@Slash396 it's retarded, i just watched the one about the Submarine that could attack 70% oc the worlds landmas with tomahawks...still only got 4 stars
@salakast No, they MIGHT have ONE carrier that RESEMBLES this one. The US Navy is literally decades ahead of any other navy in the world. No other carrier is as large, as fast, can carry as many aircraft, or launch them faster than a Nimitz-class. And within 10 years the US Navy will already be replacing them with Ford-class carriers, which only improve on the mentioned advantages. The Chinese Navy poses NO threat to the US Navy.
@KTM990WFO Glad to see the US is putting all their money China lends them to good use, building advanced weapons for killing people looks much more important than fixing the failing school systems and debt crisis for the American people.
@xiaoxiayu Firstly the US Navy's primary mission is to ensure peace keeping of the sea. Basically stopping pirates from stealing/destroying valuable cargo ships that contain millions of dollars of oil, supplies, and other resources that are imported/exported. These ships are primarily defensive, not offensive. The US defense budget and education budget are in no way related. If they can't afford to refuel a nuclear carrier they don't take it from a local high school's fund.
@KTM990WFO well thats how wrong you can be british navy is alot mor3e advanced than the US navy britian as the worlds most advanced warship the type 45 also the worlds most advanced sub the astute class and even the old Invincible class aircraft carrier can launch jets 3 times quicker than any US carrier USS Nimitz is 40 years old the old british carriers was alot newer and we got rid of them to get 2 new super carriers
@wiganerrmc The Invincible-class carriers didn't have half the flight deck area of a Nimitz-class, nor did it have 4 catapults able to launch aircraft in under a minute a piece. So no, the UK's carriers could not launch aircraft faster than a Nimitz. The UK carriers aren't even nuclear powered. And the US completely over-hauls their carriers at their half-life point. So despite the age difference the USS Nimitz is probably about 80% as advanced as the USS Bush, their latest carrier.
@KTM990WFO you dont have a clue do you the Invincible-class carriers was ski ramp alot quicker than catapults the Invincible-class carriers was able launch alot quicker
and i dont see the point in nuclear powerd aircraft carriers unless all the ships in the strike group was nuclear powerd because the over ships still need fule so dose the jets
@wiganerrmc If you're talking about individual launch speed, I'm not sure. What I'm saying is that a Nimitz-class carrier's catapult can hook up and launch an aircraft in about 30 seconds. There are 4 catapults. So within a minute a Nimitz can launch 4 aircraft, every minute. They can do this because the flight deck is big enough to constantly line up aircraft in preparation for launch. An Invincible-class carrier couldn't launch 4 aircraft in under a minute.
@wiganerrmc As far as nuclear power goes, the entire strike group doesn't refuel at the same time. They take turns while the other ships still defend the carrier. As long as the carrier doesn't have to refuel the mission can go on. True, the carrier has to bring aboard fuel and supplies for the aircraft but thats a lot faster than refueling a carrier. Nuclear power also frees up a lot of space, allowing the Nimitz to store millions of gallons more jet fuel, weapons, and supplies for the mission.
@wiganerrmc Dude the USN is the only navy that Cruisers in its naval forces !!! Finally, the DD- 51 Arleigh Burke, remains a " Super-beast " of the sea.It can't be matched.
@wiganerrmc Right, 1.) Old RN discarded ships / Old USN WWII - era ships, don't count in this age of fast Anti-ship missiles, and you know it. ( remember the Falkland's War ?!) . 2.) The only thing that is advanced about the Type -45, is it's new shiny radar system, it remains under armed for a "front-line" modern warship, as it is being reported by our own BBC !!! ( A host of English naval experts, too boot !!! ).
@MrJeffreydunson looks like you no fuck all then type 45 can fire 48 missiles at onces and can control 10 of them at any one time DDG-51 can fire a missile every 3 seconds very big difference plus a type 45 can shoot something down the size of a golf ball moveing at mach 3 a DDG-51 cant even see that on radar also a type 45 can shoot down stealth jets
@wiganerrmc So, you have witnessed this awesome " offensive might " of the Royal Navy's type 45, exactly when was that conducted, and were had you been on the Bridge ?!! with your stop watch at hand, too see if the ship's systems performed as advertised ?!! Finally, the DDG-51, doesn't need to see a damned a golf ball size anything to blow the hell-out of it !!! Less you forget, that the Aegis System, doesn't need too prove it's self, because it has already has done so !!! twit !
@MrJeffreydunson iv not but im in the navy and no people who have been on it plus i no alot about it plus BAE give alot of info on it britian was gona bye the ddg-51 which would of been alot cheaper but we didnt because we wanted one better
and were as the aegis proved itself because i no in the gulf war a US ship missed an incomeing missile going for one of the US navys ships and a old type 42 shot it down for you
@wiganerrmc Fine, Wiggy, just give us a call on the telly, and let us know, OK !!! Say around 2020 and by the way, I'll let the Aggies (Falklands), know to hold off the " invasion plans " first thing in the morning !!! until you have acquired a proper CARRIER BATTLE GROUP for " task force south atlantic " !!!
@MrJeffreydunson aggies wasn't even in the falklands so wot you onabout and no 2013 it will be fully fitted but dont forget each one cost as much as about 3 DDG-51
@wiganerrmc Well, there you have it !!! Your Whitehall critics, were correct in suggesting that it may be a good idea too have a look at some " American Hardware " !!! The DDG-51 (ACS), has no matter what you say, has " proven " itself in any given naval action or affair --- be it humanitarian relief, or an UN sanction mandate (naval gunfire support). So, your BAE has the good people of the British isles, paying 3x the cost of a winning and proven system ?! You could get 12 DDG-51.
@MrJeffreydunson if its 3 times the cost 6x3 is 18 and DDG-51 as not been proven tell me an engagement it as been in.... none
and the reason it cost so much is because its so advanced it can fire 48 missiles at once the ddg-51 can only fire one every 3 secs very big difference also the type 45 can shoot down any missile out there today unlike the ddg-51
@wiganerrmc I said 12, because you must factor in the cost for missiles, and new gear, etc, etc ... 48 missiles !!!! Are you crazy, or just in need of a hot cup of tea right now ?!! The DDG-51, has i believe over 100 missiles in just one of it's launchers !!! You must know that if your type 45, would go up against an DDG-51, at sea, No --- no just a single Arleigh Burke, can handle all of the action from your type - 45
@MrJeffreydunson no it couldnt a type 45 as better range better stealth it also can fire 48 missiles at once so even if DDG-51 has 100 it only can launch a missile every 3 secs just because it as more missiles dont mean its better on radar a type 45 which is 8.000 tonnes shows up as a small 200 tonne ship which could be a fishing boat
@wiganerrmc Let me make something clear too you, the navy has many assets at hand, for one a Carrier strike battle group, it has CAP's and the carrier as it moves about the ocean, it maintains control of an area of 250 nm, and out to over 400 nm.This means, Wiggy, that your fishing boat, shall not remain un-noticed by the carrier's screen of protection of cruisers & destroyers. In simple terms, " I have seen your 8.000 tonnes warship, about 5.2 hours ago " Checkmate, !!!
@MrJeffreydunson the aircraft would be shot down before thay would able see the destroyer anyway US and UK are allies so shut the fuck up you weird boy
@wiganerrmc Oh.... Wiggy, dear, dear !!! You can shoot-down, all of the Navy X-47B's as you wish, or please too. It shall not stop the rain of Mach 3.5 " Harpoon missiles " ( and God know's what else !!! ) from swarming upon your scrambling task force, and it's rush toward DOOM !!! The type - 45's missile battery, shall be emptied and exhausted, as the remaining Anti-ship missiles, " Lock-on " . Well, the first Type-45, rolling over as it capsizes in a cauldron of flame, its bad.
@MrJeffreydunson ye and we will have the BAE taranis better than the X-47B and plus you wouldnt get in range to fire a harpoon plus i dont no of any harpoon US as wots mach 3.5 only i think about 550 miles an hour
@wiganerrmc You still haven't solved the primary issue of the mass anti-missile attack, upon the " Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force " whether, mach 3.5 or 550 mph, it still packs a " hell of a bang ", the rain of Harpoon missiles remains " lock - on " target, and chronicling doom for the TF, The way, i see it, is that your going too need, more then half of the T45's to get through this engagement !!! The ship's Weapons Officer, reports that your nearly, expended all missiles !!!
@MrJeffreydunson the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force would able sink all US task force fleet before thay even got the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force on radar
tell be how DDG-51 only as 8 missiles for anti ship wot are rgm-84 harpoon very easy to shoot down also ticonderoga class as 8 aswell the only ship wot had good amount of anti ship missiles was the oliver hazard perry class but it as all been removed so where is all these missiles comeing from plz tell me
@wiganerrmc first, Wiggy, your info, may not be up to date? The SSM's shall come from the VLS "farms" onboard of the ships that you just named. More shall be fired from the USN submarine forces, as was the case during the gulf wars. i believe your referencing to the units, "quads" on the deck ?!
@MrJeffreydunson By the way, a US NAVY Task Force, consist of at lease two (2) Carrier Strike Groups. So you might want to bring some help along, since the RN, doesn't have a carrier, at the moment !!! oh yea, don't forget to make out a will.( leave your fuzzy teddy bear at home ).
and wot about when HMS glouchester saved USS Missouri from 2 iraqi silkworm missiles because US missiles missed so it was up to the royal navys type 42 to save USS Missouri and one of there minehunters and the royal navy is the only navy to have ever shot down a missile in war
Having learned from their programming errors during the Falklands war.... which led to the sinking of a frigate. The last time US has had serious surface action was WWII.
@wiganerrmc thats a pretty ignorant statement. The QE will carry F35s you do realize that thats a american design? also the QE will carry 40 aircraft..the Nimiz carrys 60 but can carry over 90 aircraft? The Burke and Ticos are built to protect the carrier its the carrier what does most of the destroying. so picture a strike of 60 aircraft half are carrying harpoons lets stay 6 each. 30X6=90 Harpoons on a opposing CGB.FULL EW support and AWAC coordination...good luck with that
@DeltaHawk10001 Dumbass, DF21 is mach 10 it is too fast for any of your defense system, so just accept that your carriers will be defeated if you mess up with China.
I hate to break it to you Anglo-Saxons but EVERYTHING you have today you stole from somebody else just that YOU NEVER GAVE IT BACK! The time has come for you kids to STOP living in the past and return Gibraltar to it's rightful owners (Spain) and GO BACK HOME TO England to eat your fish & chips and watch Manchester United games. Heck, Admiral Nelson tried to steal the Spanish Canary islands and lost his homo arm, 3 times in the 1700's you almost stole Spanish Minorca...YOU enjoy stealing.
@fastkillmmm Do you reeeeeally think this ship is portrayed at 100% of its fullest defensive and offensive capabilities in this video that was aired on public television? Ummmmm of course not. This video only shows the baaare minimum of this ships capabilities just to keep civilians at home entertained. I'm willing to bet anything that there are more than a few defensive measures against that Chinese missile. If it's not on this ship, there's MANY other high technology ships in our fleet.
@DeathsBite Your American military experts call our DF21D missile the GAME CHANGER, from what they say is this missile can go through your air defend system and strike at your super carrier, the generals in Pentagon is headache now.
@DeathsBite Yes I heard reverse psychology, China had kept telling US how powerful aircraft carrier is so US spend so much of money to build these stupid big useless shit now all you guys find out they are big ducks at sea for Chinese Dong Feng missiles haha!!!
@DeathsBite I'm not lying, that's your American medias say Chinese DF21 missiles create a PANIC BUBBLE in Pentagon, haha I didn't make it up, that's from your media. Why? You don't believe in your US media anymore?
@NatedogJr We already partially have. It's a hypersonic weapon. We just conducted a test with it. It hit it's target 2,300 miles (3,700 km) away and did it in less than 30 minutes.
w w w . bbc . co . uk/news/world-us-canada-15790620
Remove the spaces. It is capable of destroying ships. But remember, we do have the AEGIS BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense), which uses the RIM-161 that destroys ballistic missiles like the DF-21 at a range of 500 km.
@NatedogJr I think US has something like that but it's meaningless due to the fact US has many more aircraft carriers than other nations, so DF21D (D type is for moving target) is the biggest threat to carriers which has the range of 3000 - 4000 km and the speed of 12 times faster than sound, what US has on AEGIS BMD only is good enough to destroy targets like N Korean or Iranian missiles which are much slower and weaker, but no use to target Chinese DF21 missiles.
@fastkillmmm No smart American believes the media with out thorough research first. And the Chinese would be twice as stupid to believe them. There is nothing about the DF21 that makes it any more able to breach a task forces defenses than any other weapon. The only concern is that it is capable of destroying the ship itself. Every fleet has countermeasures to prevent this, to include CIWS missiles, AEGIS, and even its fighter patrols are capable of tracking and destroying ballistic missiles.
LOL just watched the entire video. Ok, it has defences against cruise missiles. LOL. The Sunburst is not just any missile, it is a MACH 20 (yes, 20 times the speed of sound) missile that flies under the radar hugging the ground/waters. The Russian navy is armed to the teeth with these missiles, they have thousands of them. There is a reason America grovels before Russia and asks their permission before waging any wars. Oh and apparently that general in the vid has never heard of submarines
Andhaira 1 day ago
Someone really needs to send these old generals in the us armed forces that Carriers are now OBSOLETE. Ever heard of the Sunburst missile, developed by Russia? It is called the 'carrier killing' missile for a very fucking good reason. This missile is the reason Russia decommisioned and sold off all her carriers and now only has one. It's not because they cannot afford carriers (they can, Russia is RICH) nor that they cannot build them, but that they know carriers have no defence against Sunburst
Andhaira 1 day ago
@Andhaira are you kidding me? russia is in a bigger shithole than usa is, trust me ive lived in russian for 15 years since i was born. theres poverty everywhere you look, the government barely has any money and the government is shit. the only thing russia got on usa is the army, their army is bigger
heyboy70 9 hours ago
Hazardous work environement? A coal mine is fucking hazardous work environement, a flight deck isn't so much.
0501856849 1 day ago
Cost 1 star? whaaaaaaat?
russianwolf1 5 days ago
I thought it could carry 100 aircraft, is the reduction for safety & survivability?
Even if it only carries 45 strike aircraft all ten together makes a formidable concentration of airpower - every 3rd & 2rd world nation must frame its policy by what the US CG's are doing at sea. I just wish the US would use them to cut out the heart of the Saudi-Binladen crime families & Pakistan's ISI for 9/11.
Got to respect them for naming the Class after Nimitz - who saved the US in WW2 from invasion!
infokemp 1 week ago
they forgot submarine defenses....
TheGhangy 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrMassgravity 1 week ago
Yeah, piss the Russian's off enough and they'll bring out the 100 MT "Big Daddy".
needtoalwayslearn 1 week ago
@needtoalwayslearn Searched the 100 MT got notihng.. u lied and go die in a fire... we win
Cashmachinez 1 week ago
@Cashmachinez I found it in one search you stupid fucking donkey. Typically youtube shithead. Next time improve your skills you dumb fuck.
needtoalwayslearn 1 week ago
@needtoalwayslearn u aint gotta lie to kick it
Cashmachinez 1 week ago
@Cashmachinez Still haven't got your head round Google have you ?
needtoalwayslearn 1 week ago
...torpedo
Himmelvandrer 2 weeks ago
Sad for the Americans that Swedish Submarine Gotland class can sink that ship and slip away without being noticed. They had an exercise toghether with and the Eisenhower was "sunk" by the Swedish sub.
Djbiffen 2 weeks ago 6
@Djbiffen They say that in every exercise, it means nothing, these ships are protected in a battle group.
njdevil281 2 weeks ago
@njdevil281 This is true thou.But since the both countries are friends, we told somethings to help find theese subs...
Djbiffen 1 week ago
@Djbiffen
That sounds pretty interesting. Do you know if it's on YouTube?
abdihassanawali 6 days ago
@abdihassanawali Sorry it ain't I think.But google around about it and you should find stuff.
Djbiffen 5 days ago
@Djbiffen wrong carrier, they took a picture of the Ronald Reagan
154DrPepper 1 day ago
@Djbiffen and the us navy got double the submarines sweden got
heyboy70 9 hours ago
I got two in my back yard.. serious..
Message621 2 weeks ago
You see that off your coast and you'd be shitting yourself.... More firepower than most nations.
benbur69 2 weeks ago
Well if theres one thing i have to hand to America is that there military is fucking BEAST. If i ran a country i would do just a bit diffrently , you know help out the citizens of my own land, my own people, instead of letting them starve and rott, lol either way though, at least there protected, from enemies , not there own government LMAO
MiloMatrataMusic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why are there huge holes built into the hull". Elevators transport aircraft and supplies to and from the flight deck using these. A section of the flight deck above decends to the hanger underneath and aircraft are then fed in and out. 1.54 you can see the darker patches on the deck - go to bestshipmodels and look at the nimitz drawing
smilo996 3 weeks ago
The Enterprise and its 8 nuclear reactors are due to be decommissioned next year at a HUGE cost, but rumors have it that the US government is planning to save that money by sinking the Enterprise in a false flag attack in the Persian Gulf. The onboard personnel is in grave danger.
sbugiardo 3 weeks ago
@sbugiardo Paying off all the insurances from the dead sailors is about 10 times the cost to decommission the reactors. Add that with billions dollars worth of planes and equipment lost, and you realize how silly that rumor is.
player276 2 weeks ago
@player276 let us put aside the insurance (which btw is optional) for a moment, and consider the scenario where the aircrafts are flying and an aircraft carrier about to sink and is abandoned by its personnel... if you plan this thing, you'd do it to your advantage don't you think?
I have no clue on how much it costs to dispose of the 8 reactors onboard totalling 210MW, but the average single US civilian nuclear reactor costs $300.000.000 in decommissioning.
sbugiardo 2 weeks ago
@sbugiardo
Who cares how much is costs, it's the US military... when have they ever care how much things cost? they already have a program for decommissioning aging naval reactors, the first carrier is set for 2013.
How would they make an excuse for removing all the personnel from the ship, have all the aircraft vacate to other bases and blow it up? "oh we lost a super carrier to a surprise attack, but no one died and we sortied 100s of aircraft before the attack for no reason." no
Chinomareno 2 weeks ago
@Chinomareno nuclear reactors operate within a narrow range of parameters, outside of which the reactor becomes unstable and quickly degenerates. If a reactor onboard the USS Enterprise reaches that state because of an alleged "terrorist infiltration" or because a critical system is damaged by a missile, there will be time to save the more expensive equipment and at least the high ranking personnel (cannon fodder will probably just become radiation fodder).
sbugiardo 2 weeks ago
@sbugiardo
Or they could not waste their time or money doing something so retarded. The DOD does not give a shit how much money it spends, they should but they don't. Logistics, engineering and munitions support for the ship are worth more to the contractors that eventually give their colluding officers cushy jobs in the defense industry, again no reason to care about a bill they are not paying.
Please stop making up crap, thanks.
Chinomareno 2 weeks ago
@Chinomareno must a foreigner tell you how the US politics and defence budget work? The DOD is not reimbursed for its expenses: it is allocated money in advance. The DOD does not make decisions: it is just a tool of the government.
In your nation a single schytzophrenic man is in charge of half the world military might, which he has used without congress approval. The US have almost become a dictatorship.
sbugiardo 2 weeks ago
@sbugiardo
That doesn't even contradict what I said moron... The DOD is allocated money, how does that mean they are not responsible for it's spent on? Do they not procure weapon systems? Run the tenders contractors apply for? Apply for their own budget? You are a fucking idiot.
You've assumed I'm from the US. This is probably because you have this pathetic stereotype of Americans in your head that let's you be a patronizing idiot when speaking to one. Go back to Alex Jones...
Chinomareno 2 weeks ago
@Chinomareno lol
sbugiardo 2 weeks ago
@sbugiardo
How can you claim they are in grave danger when what you've stated is only a (stupid) rumor... derp, I has the documents.
Chinomareno 2 weeks ago
@Chinomareno The onboard personnel is in grave danger anyway, because some years ago the US navy simulated an attack to Iran and lost in the few hours an aircraft carrier and several other ships: google "millennium challenge 2002".
Still the US government is not new to false flags and dirty tricks (check out Osama's killers downed in the biggest heli incident in Afghanistan few weeks after the alleged capture of the alleged terrorist).
sbugiardo 2 weeks ago
@sbugiardo
The millennium challenge isn't a secret or anything, the blue force was embarrassingly taken apart by a marine commander temporarily brought from retirement using irregular forces(not Iran...) with low tech solutions. If the US attacks any competent and sizable military like Iran it will suffer real war time losses, there will be at the very least 10s of thousands of dead US sailors and soldiers.
Doesn't mean anything you've said is remotely believable though.
Chinomareno 2 weeks ago
Why are there huge holes built into the hull
AlphahawkA25 3 weeks ago
In event of a zombie apacolypse, this is where I'd want to be.
P4RTL0W1 1 month ago
why was range only 4 stars? it can where ever the fuck it wants to?
parko456 1 month ago 36
@parko456 It's amphibious?
vycka1234 4 weeks ago
@vycka1234 it's planes can go there
parko456 4 weeks ago
@vycka1234 If the ship can't go somewhere herself then there still isn't any part of the world it can't put it's airplanes. If a Nimitz class carrier doesn't get max points for range, I don't know what weapon would.
stuntmanmike37 3 weeks ago
@parko456 I think because it takes a long time to get there. The ballistic missile subs got a 5 in range !
SuperTurbo1200 3 weeks ago
@SuperTurbo1200 how fast it's going is mobility, range is far it can go
parko456 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@parko456 it has limited supplies for crew. and can't go in the shallows or the arctic regions making it limited to docks and the open ocean
inventor121 2 weeks ago
@parko456 it can't dig into the soil...
kaelvin09 2 weeks ago in playlist Ultimate Weapons
@parko456 not on land
DressedWings 1 week ago
@parko456 also range was only 2 stars :(
DressedWings 1 week ago
@DressedWings it was 4 watch again
parko456 1 week ago
@parko456 I would guess that because of it's size, it can't go close to shore in country's that have a lot of little or big islands in there coast example Finland.
MrFinCraft 1 week ago
@parko456 land?
TheMrjosh32 3 days ago
@TheMrjosh32 this is probably news to you, but planes can fly
parko456 3 days ago
Expensive as in the US has 11 and they cost 4.5 to 6 billion initially with a daily cost of 1-2 million....each. Clearly air/naval power is of the utmost importance
Slotten68 1 month ago
Awesome awesome!!! Totally awesome!!!
UltimateAveda 1 month ago
Long live the republic!
xValerieBeliebs 1 month ago
is it decepticon proof? lol
jeremyrozario 1 month ago
costs 1? wtf?
Rayalboon 1 month ago
@Rayalboon 1 star cost means it is EXPENSIVE!
NatedogJr 1 month ago
@NatedogJr Yes, but when militaries buy things, they tend not to look for the cheapest they can find. lol
Slash396 1 month ago
@Slash396 Actually, to bad things cost millions of dollars. There are no cheaper versions....
NatedogJr 1 month ago
@NatedogJr oh ok thanks!:D we don't have anything of weapons in german tv
Rayalboon 1 month ago
of course all ultimate weapons are american weapons!
god bless the usa
olo123171 1 month ago
No ship carries more firepower? One word. Boomer.
hotdogh20 1 month ago
@hotdogh20 bigger a bomber? the biggest one is the b52 which carriers 31,500 kg the carrier has 90 aircraft most of which are f18's which carry 8,050 kg times this by 75 and you get 603,750 kg hmmm only 572,250kg more lol. This of course does not add the ships weapons and reloads.
starknight97 1 month ago
but what IF it sunk would that not be a nuclear disarter?
PieterStraetemans 1 month ago in playlist Ultimate Weapons
@PieterStraetemans no unless the missiles wot hits the ship hits the reactor then it could cause a problem but if it sunk it wouldnt do nout
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc but wat IF a bomb ecploded in the bombay what then?
PieterStraetemans 1 month ago
@PieterStraetemans a bombay on a nuclear powered ship is far away as possible but is a missile hits there the ship is down thats wot happend to HMS hood in ww2 the ship was said to be unsinkable untill a round hit the bombay
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
I nicknamed Nimitiz Carriers:Moving Island of Doom
ItEaChuStuNtS2 1 month ago
Cost = 1 star? Ofc build a carrier is obviously chep.... ROFL
Humance 1 month ago
BIGGER is not always good. Sometimes it makes it just a Bigger target, the hugest sitting duck in the World!
maydayfire 1 month ago
@maydayfire But the duck bears extremely powerful offspring. The strongest navy in the world and no other comes close.
XizelSF 1 month ago
if you think they scrapped the Enterprise class nuclear carrier just to build an equally un-manuverable Nimitz class carrier, you are in for a rude awakening when the real naval battle breaks out. Nimitz class carrier maneuverability triumph pretty much every other aircraft carrier class out there, including many not even half of its weight.
letmewatchvideodamn 1 month ago
@letmewatchvideodamn Wait until 2015 and then the USS Enterprise (CVN-65)will be decommissioned and be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.
Advanced Arresting Gear, Automation (Reducing crew size), RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow, AN/SPY-3 DBR, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (No steam catapults), A1B nuclear reactor, stealthier features, and the ability to launch "F/A-18 Super Hornets", "EA-6 Growler", F-35C Lightning II, and other aircraft.
NatedogJr 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc You might wish to stay with the " video games " and leave the " grown up " matters too the adults, for now on
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
For those that are griping about the range rating. It might be able to keep going for a long time but you still have to stock it with supplies for the sailors and other supplies for its operations.
skyknight1281 2 months ago
why 4 stars for range? it has unlimmited range for 25 years at a capable speed for a ship it really deserves 5 stars.
369NICK963 2 months ago
@369NICK963 no because 5 star would be alot more
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
several ss-n 22 "sunburn" and this will be a 1 nice gigantic reef
p4st3rn4k 2 months ago
we have 11 i think we should stop lol
ALLIED7621 2 months ago
WHY DID WE MAKE ONE OF THESE??? we should be using the money to fix our crumbling economy!
guayx2 2 months ago
@guayx2 We have more than 1, and this was created before the economy went down.
Arthreas 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc The Nimitz can launch about 8-10 a minute. And why does it matter the Invincible class is decommissioned, and we have 11 carriers
Slash396 2 months ago
The scoring system for this show is completely retarded. Of course an aircraft carrier is going to be expensive, no such thing as a WalMart Nimitz Class. And why does an aircraft carrier have to be manuverable. Also, how to you give a ship that has unlimited range for 25 years straight, a 4 star!?!?!!?
Slash396 2 months ago 39
@Slash396 yeah dude its super tarded. this stuff doesnt make sence. i havent found one that actually does mark correctly.
hax0r117 2 months ago
@Slash396 personnel require food and i dont think the ship can store 25 years worth of it on board. this is probably why it only got 4 stars for range :)
arminiuks 2 months ago
@Slash396 agree...
sprakasabutets 2 months ago
@sprakasabutets
MrJeffreydunson 2 months ago
@Slash396
Aside that, its a freaking aircraft carrier, not a weapon.
Intaminator 2 months ago
@Intaminator It's not the ship that people are scared of, it's whos on it (Navy SEALS, and some of the worlds best pilots) and whats on it (lots of planes)
Slash396 1 month ago
@Slash396 the ONLY reason for only 4 stars in range that i can think of must be that it can only operate in water
Assassinate4u 1 month ago
@Assassinate4u Which wpuld be stupid because all ships can only operate in water, that's the point of the ship. I think the researchers for this show are lazy, didn't do research and know nothing about the military.
Slash396 1 month ago
@Slash396 it's retarded, i just watched the one about the Submarine that could attack 70% oc the worlds landmas with tomahawks...still only got 4 stars
Assassinate4u 1 month ago
@Assassinate4u Ya, and the 30% it can't hit is mostly made up of Antartica.
Slash396 1 month ago
hahahah and I thought dear santa is getting old... fck I want one!!
ajdocumentary 2 months ago
cost 1 star, range 4 star, mobility 2 star?...
OHearn14AUS 2 months ago
within 10 years, the chinese might have aircraft carriers like this :(
salakast 2 months ago
@salakast yea but imagine ours by then when this was designed years ago
whudson821 2 months ago
@salakast No, they MIGHT have ONE carrier that RESEMBLES this one. The US Navy is literally decades ahead of any other navy in the world. No other carrier is as large, as fast, can carry as many aircraft, or launch them faster than a Nimitz-class. And within 10 years the US Navy will already be replacing them with Ford-class carriers, which only improve on the mentioned advantages. The Chinese Navy poses NO threat to the US Navy.
KTM990WFO 2 months ago
@KTM990WFO Glad to see the US is putting all their money China lends them to good use, building advanced weapons for killing people looks much more important than fixing the failing school systems and debt crisis for the American people.
xiaoxiayu 2 months ago
@xiaoxiayu Firstly the US Navy's primary mission is to ensure peace keeping of the sea. Basically stopping pirates from stealing/destroying valuable cargo ships that contain millions of dollars of oil, supplies, and other resources that are imported/exported. These ships are primarily defensive, not offensive. The US defense budget and education budget are in no way related. If they can't afford to refuel a nuclear carrier they don't take it from a local high school's fund.
KTM990WFO 2 months ago
@KTM990WFO well thats how wrong you can be british navy is alot mor3e advanced than the US navy britian as the worlds most advanced warship the type 45 also the worlds most advanced sub the astute class and even the old Invincible class aircraft carrier can launch jets 3 times quicker than any US carrier USS Nimitz is 40 years old the old british carriers was alot newer and we got rid of them to get 2 new super carriers
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc The Invincible-class carriers didn't have half the flight deck area of a Nimitz-class, nor did it have 4 catapults able to launch aircraft in under a minute a piece. So no, the UK's carriers could not launch aircraft faster than a Nimitz. The UK carriers aren't even nuclear powered. And the US completely over-hauls their carriers at their half-life point. So despite the age difference the USS Nimitz is probably about 80% as advanced as the USS Bush, their latest carrier.
KTM990WFO 2 months ago
@KTM990WFO you dont have a clue do you the Invincible-class carriers was ski ramp alot quicker than catapults the Invincible-class carriers was able launch alot quicker
and i dont see the point in nuclear powerd aircraft carriers unless all the ships in the strike group was nuclear powerd because the over ships still need fule so dose the jets
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc If you're talking about individual launch speed, I'm not sure. What I'm saying is that a Nimitz-class carrier's catapult can hook up and launch an aircraft in about 30 seconds. There are 4 catapults. So within a minute a Nimitz can launch 4 aircraft, every minute. They can do this because the flight deck is big enough to constantly line up aircraft in preparation for launch. An Invincible-class carrier couldn't launch 4 aircraft in under a minute.
KTM990WFO 2 months ago
@KTM990WFO nimitz aircraft carrier can launch a aircraft every 20 seconds wot is 3 a min Invincible class can launch 5 a min
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc As far as nuclear power goes, the entire strike group doesn't refuel at the same time. They take turns while the other ships still defend the carrier. As long as the carrier doesn't have to refuel the mission can go on. True, the carrier has to bring aboard fuel and supplies for the aircraft but thats a lot faster than refueling a carrier. Nuclear power also frees up a lot of space, allowing the Nimitz to store millions of gallons more jet fuel, weapons, and supplies for the mission.
KTM990WFO 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc Dude the USN is the only navy that Cruisers in its naval forces !!! Finally, the DD- 51 Arleigh Burke, remains a " Super-beast " of the sea.It can't be matched.
MrJeffreydunson 2 months ago
@MrJeffreydunson wrong russia peru have crusiers
DDG51 is nowhere near as advanced as britians type 45
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc Right, 1.) Old RN discarded ships / Old USN WWII - era ships, don't count in this age of fast Anti-ship missiles, and you know it. ( remember the Falkland's War ?!) . 2.) The only thing that is advanced about the Type -45, is it's new shiny radar system, it remains under armed for a "front-line" modern warship, as it is being reported by our own BBC !!! ( A host of English naval experts, too boot !!! ).
MrJeffreydunson 2 months ago
@MrJeffreydunson looks like you no fuck all then type 45 can fire 48 missiles at onces and can control 10 of them at any one time DDG-51 can fire a missile every 3 seconds very big difference plus a type 45 can shoot something down the size of a golf ball moveing at mach 3 a DDG-51 cant even see that on radar also a type 45 can shoot down stealth jets
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc So, you have witnessed this awesome " offensive might " of the Royal Navy's type 45, exactly when was that conducted, and were had you been on the Bridge ?!! with your stop watch at hand, too see if the ship's systems performed as advertised ?!! Finally, the DDG-51, doesn't need to see a damned a golf ball size anything to blow the hell-out of it !!! Less you forget, that the Aegis System, doesn't need too prove it's self, because it has already has done so !!! twit !
MrJeffreydunson 2 months ago
@MrJeffreydunson iv not but im in the navy and no people who have been on it plus i no alot about it plus BAE give alot of info on it britian was gona bye the ddg-51 which would of been alot cheaper but we didnt because we wanted one better
and were as the aegis proved itself because i no in the gulf war a US ship missed an incomeing missile going for one of the US navys ships and a old type 42 shot it down for you
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@MrJeffreydunson and yes the type 45 is under armed at the min only because thay have not finished fitting all them out
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@wiganerrmc Fine, Wiggy, just give us a call on the telly, and let us know, OK !!! Say around 2020 and by the way, I'll let the Aggies (Falklands), know to hold off the " invasion plans " first thing in the morning !!! until you have acquired a proper CARRIER BATTLE GROUP for " task force south atlantic " !!!
MrJeffreydunson 2 months ago
@MrJeffreydunson aggies wasn't even in the falklands so wot you onabout and no 2013 it will be fully fitted but dont forget each one cost as much as about 3 DDG-51
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc Well, there you have it !!! Your Whitehall critics, were correct in suggesting that it may be a good idea too have a look at some " American Hardware " !!! The DDG-51 (ACS), has no matter what you say, has " proven " itself in any given naval action or affair --- be it humanitarian relief, or an UN sanction mandate (naval gunfire support). So, your BAE has the good people of the British isles, paying 3x the cost of a winning and proven system ?! You could get 12 DDG-51.
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson if its 3 times the cost 6x3 is 18 and DDG-51 as not been proven tell me an engagement it as been in.... none
and the reason it cost so much is because its so advanced it can fire 48 missiles at once the ddg-51 can only fire one every 3 secs very big difference also the type 45 can shoot down any missile out there today unlike the ddg-51
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc I said 12, because you must factor in the cost for missiles, and new gear, etc, etc ... 48 missiles !!!! Are you crazy, or just in need of a hot cup of tea right now ?!! The DDG-51, has i believe over 100 missiles in just one of it's launchers !!! You must know that if your type 45, would go up against an DDG-51, at sea, No --- no just a single Arleigh Burke, can handle all of the action from your type - 45
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson no it couldnt a type 45 as better range better stealth it also can fire 48 missiles at once so even if DDG-51 has 100 it only can launch a missile every 3 secs just because it as more missiles dont mean its better on radar a type 45 which is 8.000 tonnes shows up as a small 200 tonne ship which could be a fishing boat
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc Let me make something clear too you, the navy has many assets at hand, for one a Carrier strike battle group, it has CAP's and the carrier as it moves about the ocean, it maintains control of an area of 250 nm, and out to over 400 nm.This means, Wiggy, that your fishing boat, shall not remain un-noticed by the carrier's screen of protection of cruisers & destroyers. In simple terms, " I have seen your 8.000 tonnes warship, about 5.2 hours ago " Checkmate, !!!
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson the aircraft would be shot down before thay would able see the destroyer anyway US and UK are allies so shut the fuck up you weird boy
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc Oh.... Wiggy, dear, dear !!! You can shoot-down, all of the Navy X-47B's as you wish, or please too. It shall not stop the rain of Mach 3.5 " Harpoon missiles " ( and God know's what else !!! ) from swarming upon your scrambling task force, and it's rush toward DOOM !!! The type - 45's missile battery, shall be emptied and exhausted, as the remaining Anti-ship missiles, " Lock-on " . Well, the first Type-45, rolling over as it capsizes in a cauldron of flame, its bad.
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson ye and we will have the BAE taranis better than the X-47B and plus you wouldnt get in range to fire a harpoon plus i dont no of any harpoon US as wots mach 3.5 only i think about 550 miles an hour
you dont have a clue wot your onabout do you
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc You still haven't solved the primary issue of the mass anti-missile attack, upon the " Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force " whether, mach 3.5 or 550 mph, it still packs a " hell of a bang ", the rain of Harpoon missiles remains " lock - on " target, and chronicling doom for the TF, The way, i see it, is that your going too need, more then half of the T45's to get through this engagement !!! The ship's Weapons Officer, reports that your nearly, expended all missiles !!!
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force would able sink all US task force fleet before thay even got the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Task Force on radar
tell be how DDG-51 only as 8 missiles for anti ship wot are rgm-84 harpoon very easy to shoot down also ticonderoga class as 8 aswell the only ship wot had good amount of anti ship missiles was the oliver hazard perry class but it as all been removed so where is all these missiles comeing from plz tell me
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc first, Wiggy, your info, may not be up to date? The SSM's shall come from the VLS "farms" onboard of the ships that you just named. More shall be fired from the USN submarine forces, as was the case during the gulf wars. i believe your referencing to the units, "quads" on the deck ?!
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson By the way, a US NAVY Task Force, consist of at lease two (2) Carrier Strike Groups. So you might want to bring some help along, since the RN, doesn't have a carrier, at the moment !!! oh yea, don't forget to make out a will.( leave your fuzzy teddy bear at home ).
MrJeffreydunson 1 month ago
@MrJeffreydunson and the subs attacked land targets not ships
and wot about when HMS glouchester saved USS Missouri from 2 iraqi silkworm missiles because US missiles missed so it was up to the royal navys type 42 to save USS Missouri and one of there minehunters and the royal navy is the only navy to have ever shot down a missile in war
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
Having learned from their programming errors during the Falklands war.... which led to the sinking of a frigate. The last time US has had serious surface action was WWII.
Godai
GodaiYusaku1494 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc thats a pretty ignorant statement. The QE will carry F35s you do realize that thats a american design? also the QE will carry 40 aircraft..the Nimiz carrys 60 but can carry over 90 aircraft? The Burke and Ticos are built to protect the carrier its the carrier what does most of the destroying. so picture a strike of 60 aircraft half are carrying harpoons lets stay 6 each. 30X6=90 Harpoons on a opposing CGB.FULL EW support and AWAC coordination...good luck with that
RJF1966 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc oh its you again making ignorant statments...oh lord here we go again
RJF1966 1 month ago
Dear santa...
theturbo714 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeltaHawk10001 Dumbass, DF21 is mach 10 it is too fast for any of your defense system, so just accept that your carriers will be defeated if you mess up with China.
kingofftheworld260 2 months ago
Comment removed
kingofftheworld260 2 months ago
cost 1 star?
ajefajef 3 months ago 26
@ajefajef meaning the cost a SHIT LOAD 5 star=cheap
p0wer5000 2 months ago
@p0wer5000I think these cost OVER 9000 billion dollars
TheUltimateZeal0t 2 months ago
@TheUltimateZeal0t exactly
p0wer5000 2 months ago
@TheUltimateZeal0t *not sure if trolling or stupid <:|*
tlucentefl 2 months ago
@TheUltimateZeal0t no lol more like 4.5 billion dollars
wiganerrmc 2 months ago
@ajefajef Means its costly
jethrolulz 2 months ago
@ajefajef imagine how much it cost to build
whudson821 2 months ago
@ajefajef lol
woldanchampion 2 months ago
@ajefajef as in high cost to make, the more stars the cheaper to make
TheCY107 2 months ago
@TheCY107 So it should be no stars.
janlester123 2 months ago
@janlester123 well they have to rate it
TheCY107 2 months ago
@ajefajef they cost allot so the rating is bad...
MrBeenis 2 months ago
@ajefajef More stars, the better. One star is bad.
Anonymous52550 2 months ago
@ajefajef It's 1 star cuz it is so expensive. If there are alot of stars it's cheap.
1 star = expensive
5 stars = cheap
thesoftish 1 month ago
@ajefajef well, they use our tax money...so it's cheap to them...
local1114 1 month ago
@ajefajef 1 star means unsatisfactory, meaning expensive, got it?
xiuyuansean 1 month ago 14
i play with these on my bath tub
xThUnDeRkill 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate to break it to you Anglo-Saxons but EVERYTHING you have today you stole from somebody else just that YOU NEVER GAVE IT BACK! The time has come for you kids to STOP living in the past and return Gibraltar to it's rightful owners (Spain) and GO BACK HOME TO England to eat your fish & chips and watch Manchester United games. Heck, Admiral Nelson tried to steal the Spanish Canary islands and lost his homo arm, 3 times in the 1700's you almost stole Spanish Minorca...YOU enjoy stealing.
mamabayon 3 months ago
give chuck Norris his floaty back
STFpolice1 3 months ago
Can it survive from one strike of Chinese DF21D missile?
fastkillmmm 3 months ago
@fastkillmmm Do you reeeeeally think this ship is portrayed at 100% of its fullest defensive and offensive capabilities in this video that was aired on public television? Ummmmm of course not. This video only shows the baaare minimum of this ships capabilities just to keep civilians at home entertained. I'm willing to bet anything that there are more than a few defensive measures against that Chinese missile. If it's not on this ship, there's MANY other high technology ships in our fleet.
DeathsBite 3 months ago
@DeathsBite Your American military experts call our DF21D missile the GAME CHANGER, from what they say is this missile can go through your air defend system and strike at your super carrier, the generals in Pentagon is headache now.
fastkillmmm 3 months ago
@fastkillmmm Ever heard of reverse psychology? I'd look into it. Of course China is going to eat up that bullshit.
DeathsBite 3 months ago
@DeathsBite Yes I heard reverse psychology, China had kept telling US how powerful aircraft carrier is so US spend so much of money to build these stupid big useless shit now all you guys find out they are big ducks at sea for Chinese Dong Feng missiles haha!!!
fastkillmmm 3 months ago
@fastkillmmm just keep lying to yourself. Lol
DeathsBite 3 months ago
@DeathsBite I'm not lying, that's your American medias say Chinese DF21 missiles create a PANIC BUBBLE in Pentagon, haha I didn't make it up, that's from your media. Why? You don't believe in your US media anymore?
fastkillmmm 3 months ago
@fastkillmmm I think we should make our own "DF21" since China wants an aircraft carrier also...
NatedogJr 3 months ago
@NatedogJr We already partially have. It's a hypersonic weapon. We just conducted a test with it. It hit it's target 2,300 miles (3,700 km) away and did it in less than 30 minutes.
w w w . bbc . co . uk/news/world-us-canada-15790620
Remove the spaces. It is capable of destroying ships. But remember, we do have the AEGIS BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense), which uses the RIM-161 that destroys ballistic missiles like the DF-21 at a range of 500 km.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NatedogJr I think US has something like that but it's meaningless due to the fact US has many more aircraft carriers than other nations, so DF21D (D type is for moving target) is the biggest threat to carriers which has the range of 3000 - 4000 km and the speed of 12 times faster than sound, what US has on AEGIS BMD only is good enough to destroy targets like N Korean or Iranian missiles which are much slower and weaker, but no use to target Chinese DF21 missiles.
fastkillmmm 3 months ago
@fastkillmmm No smart American believes the media with out thorough research first. And the Chinese would be twice as stupid to believe them. There is nothing about the DF21 that makes it any more able to breach a task forces defenses than any other weapon. The only concern is that it is capable of destroying the ship itself. Every fleet has countermeasures to prevent this, to include CIWS missiles, AEGIS, and even its fighter patrols are capable of tracking and destroying ballistic missiles.
DeltaHawk10001 2 months ago