Nimitz Class - Rise of the Aircraft Carrier - Big Bigger Biggest 

amen

I'm getting tried of hearing about the ads

@@randystarcher2358 am I supposed to know what that means?

tHIS can be destroyed in a matter of second, no destroyes can protect such big ship.

As a whole, this series doesnt look for "the biggest" (aircraft carrier in this case) per se. Instead, it defines specific innovations that allowed the next generation of [carriers] to grow ever larger. The "Ford" class of carrier owes its massive size to the many creative innovations brought to life over years of R&D as described in this episode. Indeed it owes its size to the Nimitz that came before it and so on.

@@l3uIletpoints You misunderstand. This documentary is many years old. And it is showing its age because the Ford class is an improvement over the Nimitz class in every way. This is not to disparage the Nimitz class and the many things it has done, but had this documentary been done recently it would have certainly gone to the Ford as the newest, biggest, and most powerful carrier with multiple innovations over the Nimitz.

​@@ShneekeyTheLostI can see your point along with his ∆

To be expected of course considering the age of the Nimitz class. They’ve been in commission since the early 70s…

You really wrote that before reading it huh? This documentary is probably older than your daddy’s left sack.

Brits One, Gerries Nil…

Yep, Sub lieutenant Reginald Warneford VC and William leefe Robinson VC had the bravery to take on superior forces (Zeppelins) and win over 100 years ago.

HMS Furious was a battle cruiser that had modified for planes but it's not the first purpose-built aircraft carrier. I see what your saying and agree but I think they just talking mainly about purpose built carrier's.

Yeah I do agree that ark royal was chosen as that was a treaty ship so even at the time she was made she was not as good as Britain could have made

But what about the implacable and then why is the Carolina on the list

Same.

The new Virginia class submarines can go 40 years without refueling.

Please substitute the word nuclear for crazy. Also keep in mind that other fuels such as diesel (for operating ground support equipment and electrical generators aboard) must be ‘unrepped’ onto the CV. Oh, and we need to vertrep many other supplies as well. The general rule is related to perishables…once fresh vegetables start to wilt, you can bet there will be an Unrep on the schedule.

Oh, and our AVGAS tanks have seven figure capacities.

All aircraft carriers big or small are just sitting ducks in the oceans against any modern missiles attacks. With hundreds or thousands missiles hit the aircraft carrier at once all that needs will be only couple missiles hit the top deck then the aircraft carrier is useless, finished.

To be fair, this is an old video, and it does have some good information

You do realize that this video was done in the 2000s right?

It’s okay this was show was probably made before you were born. We can let this one slide.

nah ur fake news stop spreading fake news

the largest airforce is the USAF, and the second is the US Navy. I think China is third

I love in india

Lies again? Nescafe Coffee

Dude… that’s just dumb… I am experiencing 3rd person embarrassment for you

Dodge wing blades and Jeff's as they killed on hot the multi million dollar warplanes Robert Hilda poor watch a movie engineers mirror the layout of the flight deck and miniature to keep track of the Cummings and going to Beach airport it's literally nuts and bolts technology this is a Ouija board there's a miniature version of the flight deck and he's a little plastic pieces that we have here track of aircraft that we actually have it on deck now these nuts ball State represent different things means that it needs an aircraft return of engines turn MMS one I need fuel and helps keep track of everything going out on the flight deck since I've moved at such a fast pace out there they're constantly updating us bored I gotta clean up L4 I got dropped guy down if you want you can put 203 on the elevator really doesn't matter this is always reliable if we have a power outage I can always rely on this being up and running before he puts up in Elmont make sure the Nimitz cannot write more across the any other carrier in the world up to 90 lethal warplanes

02-01-2024 now & it’s just as good now as it was then An interesting video for sure. Especially for someone who has never been to sea, & not going ether.

It really isn't anywhere near as stressful as a typical airport tbh, the intake is considerably less &outgoings too Theres more stress about bomb ordinance if anything

​

But no one can stand up to the evil because they have these gigantic aircraft carriers. Didn't you watch the video? The United States starts wars and murders innocent men, women, and children - all around the world - with impunity, on an ongoing basis, but no one can stand up to them. What's this part that people must do? How do we stop the most evil regime on the planet when they are so powerful?

Somebody needs to be at ‘the pointy end’ of the spear, and that’s almost always us ‘Birdfarmers’.

Oh please 🙄

That's why the U.S. went out of its way to go across half the world to wage wars on foreign soil and lie about their reasons right? Oh yeah, no it was a peacekeeping mission right.

All aircraft carriers big or small are just sitting ducks in the oceans against any modern missiles attacks. With hundreds or thousands missiles hit the aircraft carrier at once all that needs will be only couple missiles hit the top deck then the aircraft carrier is useless, finished.

😂

There is/was a long-standing U. S. Naval tradition of naming carriers after Revolutionary War (and other) battles, up to around CV-23. Eventually naming shifted to include famous military personnel (Nimitz, Eisenhower) and strong supporters of naval power (Forrestal, Vinson) until we now stick with Presidents.

Exception: Langley, they just kept the name of the Coaler (and probably saved a TON of paperwork! LOL

@@edwardweeden8837 Not necessarily. The two newest Ford class are The Enterprise, which is currently under construction and the Doris Miller. Obviously neither are president names. I doubt if any recent presidents will be used to name any ships as they have not served their country in military service and it has become less popular to name ships after people of questionable character.

@@coachwendy5618 as I am sure you know, there are no hard and fast rules to ship naming. This is very true of the custom (frequent, but not q hard and fast) of naming carriers after presidents. The two examples you mention serve as excellent examples of BOTH our points. There were three Enterprises that fought during the revolutionary era (1775-1815) - two were privateers fitted out by colonies in rebellion and one U. S. Navy sloop fitted out in the Adams administration. Actually the one being built now is the eighth Enterprise I believe. The Doris Miller could not be a better example of a name illustrating someone who strongly supported the use of naval power since he was among the first to fight at Pearl Harbor. Even better that he was an enlisted man!

@@edwardweeden8837 they are going to name two Ford-class vessels differently. CVN-80 will be the New Enterprise. 81 will be Doris Miller. I have some issues regarding them choosing Miller for a Carrier name, because Jesse L Brown would be more fitting in this regard.

Yes the Royal Navy also innovations included land the American Naval fighter Voight Corsair angling it towards the flight deck. Before that the inverted gull wing fighter was near impossible to land due to its great height and big props.

I am a former U.S. Carrier sailor who married a Brit and have lived in the U.K. for 22 years. The tendency for us ‘yanks’ to not give NEARLY enough credit to the RN in the development of naval aviation is a continuing SCAR in historical focus, and will continue until somebody - Brit or American - figures how to regulate the American Ego. On behalf of all U. S. ‘Birdfarmers’ I apologise to you Squire…simply appalling!

I think you’re giving the RN too much credit here. The Japanese and American navies were very prompt proponents of naval aviation. Japan beat out the British with the first true aircraft carrier (Hoshō)

@@timber_wulf5775 perhaps but deck configuration, island positioning, armoured flight deck, catapault systems and initial operational/combat use are all largely RN in origin…and I am half Irish so that is a bit hard to admit!

@@edwardweeden8837 honestly I would say the modern island arrangement would be more of an American design since a lot of british islands were just MASSIVE. Plus the catapult systems can be more attributed to American thinking and work

A New Enterprise is on the way, incorporating steel and fittings from the previous 2 Enterprises.

I still can't believe they didn't save her. But saved the lady lex or other ships that didn't come close to the E. Can't wrap my head around it. Sorry she deserved more respect. Thank you for your service, & to all who kept us safe.

They made a lot of weird choices when they made this thing 10-15 years ago. Like they went from the USS North Carolina to the HMS Ark Royal and then never mentioned anything in between and passed it off as the logical and practical progression of technology

Yep 1912

​@@timber_wulf5775 The video is not talking about US Navy ships only. It mentions ships which were first to make some considerable progress in the area no matter which country. Like USS Langley was first US aircraft carrier of its capabilities or advancement but one with similar capabilities already existed somewhere in world and they mentioned that.

@@om8414 it talks about the ark royal and presents it as this amazing leap in technology… except Lexington, Akagi, Kaga, Hoshou, Eagle, Langley, or even the goddamn Béarn were more impressive leaps in technology for the future of aircraft carriers

First Aircraft carrier was the British Argus in 1918 not the Hosho.

Yep without invading Iraq or Afghanistan you would have shut down your computerer early! what a poor boy! better think before writing if possible.

@@michaelpielorz9283 you can't spell and please take your medication

America the land of lack of rights and invading others without a reason America

AmeriKKKa is satan

@@michaelpielorz9283 w222222faazawrrw8

Nuclear power I guess

We relieved USS Midway CV 41 Gulf of Oman 🇴🇲 Gonzo Station West Pac 1984 aboard USS Kitty Hawk detached as an CV air wing CAG 2, VA 145 Swordsmen, NAS Whidbey Island, WA. Small world indeed

@@byronharano2391 I’ve gotten pretty DRUNK with Swordsmen on liberty in my days onboard two PACFLT CVs.

@@edwardweeden8837 Nice Shipmate! Me as well...lol.

@@edwardweeden8837 PACFLT always. 7th Fleet

They are listed as capable of 30 knots, so im sure they can do more, a ship of that size doing 40 mph......thats nuts

Knots are different than mph.

The ‘official’ USN published ship specification will NEVER cite a max speed for a CV. It will simply say ‘in excess of xx knots’…in a CV’s case, 32.

@@edwardweeden8837 yep, so probably about 40 mph...... thats moving considering my 23 foot center console does 45 wide open on flat water...... feels way faster on water

My friend on the carrier said it's capable of going fast enough to cause damage to the hull. He didn't say how fast that was.

It was.

@@coachwendy5618another British idea

Faceoff my brother rest in peace .

Already done

Is the Moskva the biggest of the Russian submarines?

@@bobbybob3865 I just did a search. The biggest is called the belgorod.

No, before that we used branches bent into an arc, or a "bow" if you will. Run a string from either end and you have a surprising amount of stored energy. There were some popular weapons based on this principle; perhaps you've heard of them?

@@alaeriia01 i know why a bow is, slingshot is different

I would imagine if they don’t yet have this technology they don’t have the resources to procure it. Our enemy’s have far more information on our military tech than this documentary would provide.

Lol, SMH