How Fast Could America Build More Aircraft Carriers ? 

And the LARGEST SEA COFFIN I've ever seen ... 'wonder what those 5000 would be dead sailors will be thinking when they know that they won't have time to reach the bridge while their huge coffin is sinking beneath the waves and toward the Deep ... I'm glad to descend from infantry men and women ...

@@rodfel2001 -- In the history of warfare, the advantage has swung several times between tactics and weapons (killing power). I think it is swinging back to killing power and unfortunately the U.S. military is still fighting WWII with WWII tactics. The time is coming when we are going to get our a$$ clocked very badly and we will be totally shocked by it

@@WACATX767882 agreed ...

The largest sea coffin ever built ...

@@WACATX767882 by what? What weapon system could take out a carrier?

Take it a step further and make the carrier unmanned as well

You would have to find and retrain whole classes of engineers to run boilers. The rate of BT, Boiler Tech has gone away. My Father in law was a lifer BT. They were a different kind of old salt. Sure, they could be retrofitted to carry F35s or old Harriers. I'd love to see the Skyraiders come back too since the A10 cant fly off carriers. More old tech that has been lost to time.

@@anthonyrosa5006 You've never heard of the Tamara, Wasp of America Class?

@@anthonyrosa5006 The America-class amphibious assault ship costs US$10.094 billion - initial program cost for 3 ships ($3.4B/unit FY15). Although they only carry helicopters and V/STOL aircraft, USS America, with a displacement of about 45,000 long tons (46,000 t), is similar in size to the French Charles de Gaulle and the Indian Vikramaditya fixed-wing aircraft carriers. Also, while more than 124 feet (38 m) shorter, they are of comparable displacement to the former US Navy Midway-class aircraft carriers. USS America can be used as a small aircraft carrier with a squadron of jet fighters plus several multipurpose helicopters, such as the MH-60 Seahawk. She can carry about 20 to 25 AV-8B, F-35Bs, or a mixture of the two Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier has a Program cost ofUS$37.30 billion (FY2018) and a Unit cost of US$12.998 billion (FY2018) it has a Displacement of about 100,000 long tons (100,000 tonnes) (full load) and the ability to carry up to 90 aircraft, including the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Boeing EA-18G Growler, Grumman C-2 Greyhound, Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II, Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, and unmanned combat aerial vehicles We could build 4 America Class Ships for every Ford Class...we could have built 50+ America Class Light Carriers

You are a low brow idiot

300 000 000 against 1.5 billions? ... I PUT MY MONEY ON CHINA! ...

@@getredytagetredy how so?

@@rodfel2001 IN 9 years, the Chinese will have more people over the age of 65 then the entire population of the U.S.

@@rodfel2001 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vTbILK0fxDY.html

Russia has no dock yards for Aircraftcarrier.

@@georgepantazis141 his Russian example is a generalized one referring to all aspects of Russian manufacturing

Yeah those crafty Russians who have one mostly broken carrier which deploys with a ocean going tug because even the Russians realize it's likely to breakdown

@@tomdolan9761 the Russians don’t need carriers to them it’s a waste of money! Check out Russia’s fleet of icebreaker and then tell me they can’t build one if they wanted to! As much as I love an Aircraft Carries like the next guy Russia just doesn’t need them! They’re not surrounded by Oceans away from other hostile countries that’s why their ground force is double in numbers then USA’S

The same Russians that don't have enough spare parts to maintain the aircraft that are generations behind?

Sadly it seems that Jaegers hit a size that we do not have the material science to build currently

A Carrier is five thousands sailors and aviators; eleven carriers is 55 thousands men and women who will be assured they won't return home, and the sea will be their burial site ... I prefer the infantry ...

@Enoy The accompanying ships are just gravy. Once your carriers gone, there won't any alternate choice for the rest of the fleet than to try to keep the enemy subs at bay and to prevent them to swarm it, because the attack subs will be in the prawl : the cruisers will be hunted down first and sunk then, the destroyer and then the Frigates; once they're all gone, you know what's in the waiting : the total mastering of the sea by the enemy, and its willingness to bring the war to your shores ... Japan anyone? You better start thinking about whether or not the US is in a shape of winning a regional war far from its shores : Vietnam, Irak, Syria and Afghanistan constitute the answer ...

@@rodfel2001 and what navy on planet earth has the capability to do this to the US navy?

@@rodfel2001 Why would they not return home ? Sinking a carrier is not that easy. They are big targets but like the elephant ...had to miss but very easy to really make him angry. On land they can find you, radar, heat seeking stuff, electronic / sound sensitive seeking stuff, unless you have backup... they will get you.

@@rodfel2001 First the fleet carrier protects it's escorts and they protect the carrier. It's a team effort and they are trained for that. While you are sending planes out either from land or water 2 submarines armed with strike missiles and land attack cruise missiles will be looking for you. Then, in a major conflict; a Carrier Task Force will consist of 2-3 carrier battle groups with extra support from heavier ships built for surface warfare. Where did you get your naval doctrine ? Elementary School?

[LAUGH WRITING] OH, NOW THAT'S FUNNY - GOOD ONE DUDE.

And they will put a kill switch on the firing system ... :-)

Totally Based

As Chinese, I would say that's a brilliant idea. As we know, China's products were very high quality with low price. Give us your military tech and requirement, Chinese workers will satisfy customers as usual.

@@marshallyoung6523 I don't doubt that, however, the problem I have with your low end products is that they're still in shiny condition, but they stopped to work after a few months ... Do you know what "CAMELIA FLOWER" means in the West?

The fastest ship building yard in World War II was in Bremerton Washington and there's enough fabricators in the state to build as many ships as they need and not drag ass

The war has been going on since 1913 when the Zionists declared war on America... But people are tooooo Stupid to realize it... There are books that explain it all but people just want to play games ...idiot war games provided by the same enemy who rules over you

@Jeffery Franks If a missile gets through, the aircraft carrier will most likely blow, sink, be incapacitated or all at once. People seems to forget that an aircraft carrier is just a big ass tin can with thousands of liters of easily explosive jet fuel plus a ungodly amount of bombs. If a missile gets through, the Aircraft Cartier has no armor to speak of. You can just see how thin the steel is on those ships, I don't think it can stop a 7,62 rifle round fired at. The missile will go through like a hot knife on butter and the secondary explosions will tender the rest of the ship useless.

@Jeffery Franks The anti missile defense can and will be overcome if US enters in combat with any serious country. That's the primary target. Without the aircraft carrier the rest of the fleet is just a nuisance without purpose. Secondary target would be the supply ship. And you have seen the same video as I did. Those steel compartments are not going to handle a missile or secondary explosions. The compartmentalization was made to survive torpedoes. A torpedo is not going to make the same damage as a ballistic missile. Why? Speed alone is enough to rip trough several layers of armor, you then add the warhead plus the secondary explosions, the fire.... And no, they don't have the option to shut a part of the ship shut, since the fire would cave in the whole ship. You can actually see that's damage from that ship IS lost that way. Now that was in harbour, crew took too long to respond as it was going trough repairs, but in the heat of battle with several planes and a lot of tons of fuel and etc, the result would be the same but much faster.

@@Melanrick wow, you must be the smartest person on the planet, who would've thought that the engineers and the ship builders with decades of experience and technical know-how would be so stupid to not be able to account for such things. Also your fantasy missles and that hyper velocity mythril 7.62 bullets is simply fantastic, to think that missles act like battleship shells of yesteryear piercing through plate steel armor at high velocity then detonating its thousand ton payload after going through multiple bulkheads is nothing short of awesome, and that mythril 7.62 bullet, you should contact the US Navy and tell them where to procure those super bullets that could sink a Navy Warship. Sarcasm aside, the carrier's layout would be well planned out to make it as survivable as possible, some critical areas I imagine would be sufficiently armored like the ship's magazines and fuel tanks for the planes. Just by the sheer size of the carrier it would take a lot of beating just to sink it. Also, although they may not be using "armor grade steel", the structural steel used in the ship would need to be pretty thick to be able to support the structure and not cave in on itself, have you even been on a ship? Even a ferry has a thick enough hull that a 7.62 bullet wouldn't be able to penetrate it. Missles (yes even the big ballistic missles) don't work like bullets, they explode on impact (though some do have penetrative capabilities but not to the extent that the missle itself would penetrate said steel armor then explode on the other side) like an rpg, missles would I imagine be 3 types, 1 shaped charge, 2 fragmentation, 3 high explosive. Speed alone would not penetrate anything (try throwing a tomato against plywood) It would depend on the density and mass plus the velocity of an object to be able to penetrate something. Most Missles, as you would expect doesn't have a dense penetrative tip, the tip of a missle is where the guidance system is followed by the payload (which is not as big as you think unless of course it is of the ballistic missle type) then finally the propellant which makes up more than 50% of the missles' weight (because long range) On a side note: if you still believe your fantasies, there is a video here on youtube where the US Navy conducted live fire excersises (yes, missles, torpedoes, bombs, etc. you name it, they used it) against one of their decommissioned carriers (USS America CV-66) after 4 weeks of abuse it sank, after they scuttled it with demolition charges from within

​@@lostjuvenile4223 A missile being launched at mack 10 speed is going to go trough that man. Its a lot of metal going really strong. Most ballistic missiles goes around 500 tons or something around that weight being thrown at 14k km/h, that is a lot of Force being concentrated in a small steel place. The steel doesnt have to be that strong to handle the weight of the structure, you just have enough corridors and the weight is spread trough the steel just fine. Is like a house, you try to have a roof of the size of a football camp without pillars you are going to have some major problems and on top of that, you put 50 tons of weight on the roof, it is going to cave in, but if you have pillars and corridors that do have support on the ceiling than you can do that with wood and you are still fine. The thickness of the steel is not strong enough. I was being sarcastic on the 7.62, they do have some layers of kevlar on top of the steel and a simple plate carrier stops those bullets all the time. Now, if ballistic missiles werent effective, there wouldnt be so much dread upon the ballistic defenses of China on south China Sea. It would be just a minor nuisance and thats it. You go see simulations and predictions of US Admirals and not only usually US loses because of the amount of missiles, but they usually have Carriers Sunk. The bottom line is: An US carrier is a walking bomb. It has tons of bombs inside, jet fuel, jet planes and etc. Compartimentalization helps to prevent a ship sinking *if* it is leaking, now *fire* in a *metal ship* in a "compartimentalizated space" will melt the ship and the structure will cave in. Ever heard of the The USS Bonhomme Richard? It got knocked up, some of the structure cave in, they couldnt contain the flames and the spread of it. And that was an electrical fire. Imagine a missile hit that got the sweet spot (Meaning anywhere on top of the Aircraft Carrier) and got an secondary explosion in the middle of the sea without support because its under fire. Compartimentalization will only keep the ship cooking and as fire spreads or get hot, especially if it hits fuel or damage enough eletronics it will *melt* the steel. Now, again, the amount of *force* the steel plates of the aircraft carrier will handle is proportional on where it is being concentrated, how much and what it hits after going trough the first layer. You hit the flight deck, there is a lot of juice things there. There is the steam pipes, the catapult system, the hangar bay bellow, a lot of planes and crap on the surface, etc. The math is: F=m.a It gets a little more complex with missiles, but 500 tons is a good enough density to get some awsome force being applied. You dont need too much density if you have enough speed. Countries spent billions upon billions of dollars on those things because they work and if they werent enough to pierce trough an Aircraft Carrier, they would start making it densier. But you dont need a thungsten alloy or some crap like that if you have the speed.

@Ayoo Anthony okay so it’s covered in the air however you’re forgetting that China for example has a lot of surface ships then us so we’d have to take them out before they get close enough and then you’re also forgetting about submarines which are extremely hard to detect so I think you need to look at how it could be attacked from all angles

Nuke carriers still have to be fueled with diesel, gasoline, aviation fuels, and a variety of lubricants. The main propulsion only needs refueling every 20 years give or take a few.

They have a life span of 50 years and only need to be refueled once at about the 25 year mark.

​@@living2ndchildhood347 the get all their supplies while at sea.

The design study considered a smaller cheaper carrier for war production with one reactor combined with turbines two elevators each capable of lifting two warplanes. Such a carrier would be Kittyhask sized and would sail using the reactor only adding the turbines during flight operations.

True, but it is built like a crocodile : an armored back,but a very soft underbelly. All warships are suffering from this soft spot, and it is not because you are fitted with the most powerful sonar that a fleet of experienced "sea wolves captains" can't wait for your fleet and then overwhelm it with torpedoes and cruise missiles. No, I prefer the Army, because I hate to find myself in an element where I can't breathe freely and, most of all, I don't can't see anything that is coming up at me from underneath ...

We're not thinking WW2 Einstein, but a War where you won't even hear the missile before it hit (hypersonic); you won't even be able to shoot it down, because it is too fast and manoeuvering. If one of them with a yield of a few kilotons, and you don't even need nuclear fusion to obtain that kind of power, hit your carrier, it is the GREAT SAYONARA for 5000 braves who won't return to the land of the free ...

Yes, most of that fleet was sunk or badly damaged. I think 6 CVEs, 2 DD. 3 DEs and we lost 2-3 carriers, I DD and 2 DEs. The only reason the Japanese left was that they were after hunting the main carrier group and they did take heavy damage from those planes. The planes had mostly HE bombs for land attack and not armor piercing stuff. The heaviest gun on the US side was the 5 inch ( 3-4 on DD, 1-2 on DE, and one each on each of the escort carriers. One heavy Japanese cruiser carried 9 - 8 inch (280 lb shells ), 10 to 12 - 4.7 inch guns, the equal of all the U.S. ships. The Japanese had several cruisers, destroyers, and 3 battleships. It was dumb luck any survived. Study the Falklands Campaign before you start placing small carries in a war zone. It may change your mind and think about having someone you care for out there.

This country has the most advance weapon technology in world , I think that every country has a secret weapon on its arsenal like Russia,China , UK and more but US is far advance compare those country that’s why China keep hacking them and copying design but no matter China do they’d can’t copy the quality they can copyright the design but not the technology.

​@gregwallace9314 Fair point. I remember the UK (pretty sure it was UK) stopped using CVE's in Anti-Submarine operations after they lost one to a Sub.... cause a smaller carrier still isn't too different from the larger one. Has all the same weaknesses minus maneuverability.

@@gregwallace9314 Wasn't dumb luck, was sheer willpower and bravery. Also, only lost one CVE. The Battle off Samar, for anybody interested. Ernest E. Evans was an absolute legend.

Amphibious assault ships are basically already light carriers

@@SerbyTPA I am talking about a carrier based on the independence class LCS with a crew of two hundred excellent for antisubmarine work and capable of carrying a marine raider group .

People like you dont need to live on the earth anymore... You are a stuck on stupid war monger

Also left out San Diego, Long Beach, Alameda and Treasure Island yards

Why would we want to go non nuclear powered carriers? The queen Elizabeth has a range of 8000 km that's not even enough to cross the Pacific.

Lol that’s a terrible option . Don’t kid yourself. Quality over quantity

That's back when we had a skilled work force now idk

The Chinese will always be faster : they have the manpower and their hands are not tied up by greedy syndicats. America can't compete anymore ... PERIOD ...

@@rodfel2001 never under estimate the sleeping giant Japanese did that an look what happened

Twentieth and twenty first century generations, like you, are fed with data that has been, more or less, recently modified in order to suit the propaganda campaingn that glues the populations of an empire together. National production is tied to manpower and nation entellect, which is the ability to understand from simple to complicated instructions; you most also make sure to have access to the raw materials needed to sustain that production. Now, take an honest look at China and the United States and tell me which one between those two nations is superior to the other on mostly anything. The world doesn't want to acknowledge China superiority, just to allow the US to keep a face saving high profile it does not deserve, and because China is primarily focused on the future and not the short term and immediatly gain. China has left the US behind in do many sphere that Joe Biden has himself and lately admit that the US can't compete. China's population is five times larger than the US's; the Chinese art of fast colossal building, added to their shear manpower superiority will have the Yanks crying for mercy very quickly in an arm race. It is the truth that the US had managed to produce 300 000 airplanes (wikipedia) during the war, which gives it a ratio of 50 000 aircrafts a month. Now, imagine the Chinese with their mammoth 1.5 billions pairs of arms and brains, and with a reputation of building things at light speed (one thousand beds hospital in six days, one city bridge in fourty eight hours, while it take us 13 years to build an overpass) can do. If the Hans get an adrenaline rush and they start to build their armed forces, they will overwhelm the World in one year, and by the time the Yanks and their allies will reach 300 000 airplanes, the Chinese will produce 1 000 000, thus stop using your tongue, but your brain, like most of the world does ... My friend, if you are human after all, you will aknowledge that the US has an urgent need to correct its geopolitics, in order to retain the little prestige and power it still enjoys in the world. My heart is crying every day at the idea of seeing an authoritarian state and system like China get a hold on the World (there goes the freedom I was enjoying during the 50s through the 80s years), but aren't we turning into the same in the Western World; is our last bastion for FREEDOM and LIBERTY in AFRICA? No, my friend despite everything they say, the United States know it's over and that they're being dethroned, not by China, but by a world thrivIng and hungry for a leader that will bring it peace and prosperity; however, I'm afraid that, wherever it will come from (Xi or Putin) that PEACEFUL WORLD will be obtained at the cost of our TOTAL OBEDIENCE to the Knew "FEDERATION" AND "CARDASSIAN" SYSTEM THAT ARE ON THEIR WAY, and in which the MOTHER GOOSE STATE will provide everything and demand ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE ...

This isn't true. Even back in those days it took 3 years from ordering to commissioning for a fleet carrier and the reason the USA had enough carriers during the war is because they started with enough and ordered enough additional ones as France fell and Britain came under siege in late 1940.

Use a combined Nuclear steam installation using 1 reactor. You could substitute turbines for steam turbines depending. The ships use the reactor for distance and the alternative power for dash speed. The reactors are both expensive and a building bottleneck.

A Super Carrier that cannot launch any airplane is a bigger burden to the fleet, because it must, now, cover a big fat sitting duck that cannot protect them with its fighter bombers ...

Or escort them with, heavy Sqaudron of destroyers that has anti hypersonic interceptors. .

So ..... don’t let them sail east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel? Or west of the Straight of Juan de Fuca? Or past Cabrillo National Park?

Bombarding mankind, with multi thermonuclear warheads from space, is a sure way to expedite mankind termination. You see, I don't mind but, let me get the hell out first ... to Mars with Elon ...

Yea, because we're be at war in about a month

Pascagoula yards too!

Yes, there's a way to be deadly on the cheap especially if they built the ultra quiet European ones that exist now.

I agree - nuclear subs are overkill in some of the shallower seas around the world

Where is the money? ...

@@rodfel2001 Up your ass and to the left. I’m sorry. Just joking. Every time my wife asks me where something is, that’s the answer I give her. It never gets old. 😬

@@rlicon1970 America can build excellent Diesel Electric subs. The only area that may be improved upon is the battery capacity. We have the motors, engines anechoic coatings , great props and numerous sound suppression techniques.and years of experience. We even had the worlds deepest diving DE sub, the Dolphin (ended up as a research ship). We wont buy German boats. I could see them buying the tech and having the Germans run production here as a contractor the way they are building Frigates..

Were not talking about an oil tanker or a bulk freighter. I worked at Newport News Shipbuilding 1988 to 1992.

we would not come anywhere close. In 1941, the US was a UNITED states. Today? DIVIDED states.

The way we’re going it’s probably that the next carrier will be electric power by Duracell or Energizers AA batteries 😂😂

Too bad the next all out war will be over in at the most six months

Still limited by the number of big shipyards

Go to the world war 2 Museum in New Orleans and look at the industry of America when committed to victory. Only thing that slows us is corrupt politicians.

Build em faster more workers more resources an production of the material

Limited by Machinery and plant...they are bespoke one offs their is no "Commercial off the shelf" nuclear powerplant.

The only reason they build anything is to keep minimum production facilities operating. Without that we would lose the labor pool of skilled workers and the shipyards might get caught up building commercial ships eliminating wartime production. The next war we wont stay safe, we will get hit directly and if the current administration is in charge we are screwed. We can hope for a military coup.

@@anthonyrosa5006 I have read that several times over the years. I was in the Navy from 88-90 active (sea college) and then from 90-93 reserves and IRR til 95. Anyway I was non rated initially because of the short enlistment period. So I had a choice of Airman, Seaman or Fireman. I chose Airman and asked for a squadron. I did graduate with highest honors in my division and was told: you’ll get what you want just write down your top three assignments. I chose three squadrons in the West Coast. So, as expected 😂 lol… I was promptly sent to CVN-69 deployed in the Med and based in Norfolk.. Anyway on our return to Norfolk we had an accident and ended up in Portsmouth Naval Ship Yard for 6 months. During that time I did a lot of research on ship building in the US because I was drawn to the history of the US naval ship production in WW2. What I learned was that the US already had a healthy steel and ship building industry but WW2 put it at the pinnacle of world ship building production. At the end of WW2 we had: US Navy had 6768 active ships by 1945, August 15th, as follows: 23 battleships (4 Iowa class, 4 South Dakota class, 2 North Carolina class plus 13 WWI era BBs); 28 Fleet Carriers (Saratoga, Enterprise, Ranger and almost the entire Essex class: the few exceptions in this class were those still under construction); The Midway class were under construction by that time. 71 Escort Carriers; 72 Cruisers; 377 Destroyers; 361 Frigates (knew then as DE); 232 Submarines; 586 Mine warfare craft; 1204 patrol vessels; 2547 amphibious craft; 1267 auxiliary craft; 833 surface warships of various other tipes; We built, in 4 years 122 escort carriers During World War II, American industry produced a staggering 122 escort carriers in six different classes. While some "baby flattops" were built on merchant or tanker hulls, others were built from the keel up as carriers. The most numerous were the Casablanca-class carriers manufactured by industrialist Henry Kaiser. This doesn’t count the merchant ships built and sold to allies

If they can extend the life of the oldest carriers, then they would have the time to add Ford class ships as well as additional LHA. Modern 'Escort' carriers that can handle drones and 'Loyal Wingman' sorties would expand the punch of the CVNs.

@@starrionx1 except that “modern escort carriers CAN’T handle the drones you speak of because they are catapult launched and arresting wire recovered crafts... things your “escort carrier DO NOT HAVE. VTOL a and SKI RAMP carriers cannot force project because they cannot launch AWACS planes so you have a much smaller RADAR dome over your carrier or have to rely on AWACS being flown from allied Ground bases, same with midair refueling because “modern” escort carrier can launch tactical planes with bombs or fuel, not both. Non NUCLEAR a carriers can defend the home coast, patrol along adjacent coasts but cannot force project across DEEP water..... I’m not arguing for or against e position , just injecting a little reality into people’s fantasies about naval aviation. Perhaps it is Time to force The rest of NATO and for that matter the Blue Hats at the UN to start carrying their load and convert the US Navy into a Monroe Doctrine Navy. Reduce the number of super carrier for deep water force projection and increase the number of Escort carrier and LHA that CAN fit through the Panama Canal sharing that technology with friendly New World nations. We have three Tarawa classes swinging at anchor along the Pier, two in reserve, one more requested as a Museum ship. Furthermore with the sad exception of the Bohomme Richard we have 7 Wasp Class ships set to be replaced with America Class vessels. What if instead of scrapping them we lent them out to the Navies of Canada, Mexico, and a few others way down south?

@@MrSheckstr Or how about we don't scrap the Wasp and Tarawa classes and get creative in how to use our existing assets.

The F-35 is not an 'air defense fighter'

@@rickrasmussen8022 It’s supposedly a multi role aircraft, air to air being one of those roles. Stealth/low observability should work great for CAPs, as they should be able to detect targets, long before they themselves could be detected, and if AEW can’t detect them, they can’t guide their aircraft so as to avoid the CAPs

The US already has that platform. The US has about 10 LHA/LHD that can carry F-35B. That is exactly why the F-35B exists.

We could also modify super tankers, bulk carrier ships and container ships - load them up with drones and cruise missiles and have really effective 'bombardment' ships

The Admiralty had demanded six; the economists offered four; so we compromised on eight.

First you need the money to arm and then, to sustain the war effort. With 26 trillions and growing, how far and how much the US is ready to put its people into debt, in order to protect its number one spot in the wolrd ... but doesn't it know that it has already lost it? ...

@@rodfel2001 out we could just get in a bunch of debt with China, then invade them.

78 to 122 aircraft carriers were completed/commissioned ,depending on how you count,but only about two dozen ( Essex class) were fleet carriers and at least half a dozen were ordered ( which matters a lot) more than a year before the outbreak of war with Japan. I suppose if we correctly take the war in Europe as the kickoff date you can arrive at very different numbers but lets at least make the distinction between what it takes to make a fleet carrier and how relatively quickly you can slap together escort carriers.

When you have 1.5 billions brains and pairs of arms, innovation will rent a condo in your nation for a very very very long term. Here in the West, we're living in an socio economic apartheid, where certain groups of individuals must enjoy privileges from the system more than some others, while in China, every single child is entitled to the highest education and the same opportunity, compound those facts with the constant and steady drop in the number of new born babies in the West and you will understand that there is in no way we will be able to compete with the Chinese if they would dicide to switch to Turbo Boost. We can say anything we want to make us have a "feel good" moment, the fact is we are declining and fast. We just hope that the other party makes some mistakes we could take advantage of, however, we risk to end up waiting for a long long time before we see that mistake ... because for the time now, they are taking shamelessly advantage of ours ...

Actually the first aircraft carrier built using modular technology was the CVN-71 USS TEDDY ROOSEVELT

Better start thinking about the infrastructure needed to build that war equipment first

@@WACATX767882 those same women showed the world how to do THAT as well bud lol

@@WACATX767882 During ww2, the us went from the M3 lee to hundreds of shermans in a few years. They can do it like they did before

We were the richest country then; we had air dominance in Europe, our manufacturing base is out of reach of the enemy. It's a different time or era now; russian ICBM can strike us now. So the 1940s & 2020s really has a big difference. Just my thoughts.

@@seppeisenmann8710 If ICBM start to rain, you don't need aircraft carrier anymore. Or anything else, except a grave.

@@RouGeZH The thing that should be asked is "if the sh*t hits the fan, are you prepared?" No offense to you bro, & I don't know abt you, but I am ready. And that's no sh*t. I'll just get my favorite drinks & food, & wait for the end. But as of now, I'm too busy living to worry abt dying. Aren't you enjoying your life, man? Tnx for the reply.

Military History Visualized did a video where he explained why Japan lost by showing the commissioning date of every warship the US and Japan built during the war. It wasn't even close and by 1943 the US had doubled the size of their prewar Navy, then just piled on. But then, ships and weapons were very basic back then and a heckuva lot smaller. Modern day destroyers are the size of WWII heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers are almost double the displacement of an Iowa class battleship.

not going to happen bro, classified or NNPI and NOFORN

The Army and Marines have about 9,000 M1's in inventory...thousands of more in the service storage depot. How many do you want? At this point we have more tanks than crews to crew them...

@@tammyhenson7295 yes I understand your point but also I think we need to have a larger force the the Chinese and Russians which the Russians have more tanks even if some are outdated they still can do damage so we need more men then we can get more tanks to crew them

Because the America class LHA's are nearly as capable as the QE class.

We need the jobs and manufacturing capability here. Why would we help any foreign country’s build capabilities? And the 2 British QE POW carriers are not very capable compared to the big American carriers. Honestly the British ships aren’t even in the same league as an American ships. Sorry but it’s true.

Yea and no one has thought about that

The Ford class is essentially the same as the Nimitz class. Yes there’s some differences but basically the same hull. The only thing slowing down construction is that Congress has to authorize the funds, which I believe has recently agreed to acquire the the new Enterprise and the 4th in class who’s name I can’t remember.

@@tarn1135 I think it's the USS Doris Miller, CVN-80 or 81.

we have 7?

@@jamesstewart3000 we actually have more than that. I'm just saying, in a full on peer to peer combat situation, I'd rather have more attack subs then giant floating targets...

That was with a country full of heavy industry and almost all blue collar workers. Now the countries full of white collar and service industry workers.

to be fair, planes are bigger then the props of ww2, I think around double or even triple with the F-35's which can't really fold as much as previous carrier planes because of stealth.