US Billions $ FLYING Aircraft Carrier Is Finally Ready For Action 

Jim Mulholland For the sake of the world, I pray so!

Yea unless the alledged Solar Warden / Radiant Guardian projects "discovered" by Gary McKinnon are just the deep black off chutes of Thomas Townsend Brown's Project Winterhaven / Project Montgolfier!

Right on point. This would be the biggest white elephant project in the world.

We have to land on the moon first before we can even think about Mars next 🤣

Love ❤️ USA 🇺🇸

Nuclear power definitely can or nuclear fusion power definitely can so don’t say nothing can

You be surprised what the black opps government programs can do

Fusion its already there like ngad

@@Fuunyrob the weight of an aircraft carrier, the weight of the aircraft, fuel for the aircraft, the crew, food for the crew. The reactor, the water to cool the reactor. You're not looking at the weight of an aircraft carrier, you're looking at possibly the weight of two to three aircraft carriers right there. Impossible.

Also you need to make it so that it won't get shot down by a meager 10mil dollar missile from the sky. Would be a neck breaking story if a billion dollar airfleet gets shot down in the warfield

If russians made flying aircraft carriors that held 4 fighters to 8 in world war 2 your telling me we cant do the same with more fighters? At least 12 f22s

"EXACTLY "!!!

They've been working on them

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow are more like it.

@@wickwire9560 lyl

That would be me and I figured it out. It will be featured in some of my future content. (And yes, I was inspired my Avengers Assemble.) I can prove it, too. Just drop me a line and I'll send you a free copy of CODE NAME: Monte Rico, where I invented five new weapons.

Don't say impossible. You've seen what human kind have done already

@@ShadowWolf-om4ub It definetely isn't impossible, but It isn't happening any time closer than like 70 years.

@@Deran087 its alright. I'll cryo myself until then

The problem of the number of Aircraft on a Carrier is not how many , but of the storage of them and maintenance. That's the problem for most, the Ford Class can probably carry more but if the hanger is full can maybe carry more on deck like some did in WW2 like when USS Hornet attacked Japan on the Jimmy Doolittle B-25 raid but had USS Enterprise as escorting it then.

And remove all plane storage and repair stations. Also this is just clickbait not real at all.

agreed

Most common sense comment on this thread.

Nothing like a 50 Billion Dollar Pinata

It's main purpose is exactly what it's name is. Aircraft carrier. The benefit to transport fighter jets to far off places while at the same time carry large missiles and nuclear warheads. Enable the US to be in direct strike distance to any country in the world

@@underconstruction778 Great answer..Yet it's still a big target considering the new type of weapons available today by enemies.

🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 they could build a small carrier .1 big plane carrying 1 small fighter jet like space shuttle plane it's the only logical solution 1 big plane carrying a fighter jet close to battle and then leave it to fly to save fuel 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷👋🙏🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿☮☮☮🇺🇦🇷🇺🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👑👋🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Yeah! One huge "Mother goose."☺️👍✌️🇬🇧

Here come Robojox

I immediately thought "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross" when I read that comment

Optimus Crime

they were lighter that air dirigibles... don't confuse yourself.

@@kevinkarbonik2928 They were lighter than air dirigibles that carried heavier-than-air aircraft and could launch an recapture them mid air - by any definition, aircraft carriers - and they also had vectored thrust capabilities - don't think there's anything confusing about it - Though on a technical point, all dirigibles fly a little heavier than air, and rely in part on dynamic lift, for the advisable expedient of a fail-safe return to land in the event of total engine and valving failure.

Yeah - Its just staggering how many clowns peddling this sort of sci-fi bullshite there are on RU-vid. Worse is the fact there are literally millions of people who believe this crap is real. Millions claim the moon missions were faked and then millions turn around and believe this crap. Its enough to make you wonder if oxygen is actually a hallucinogenic.

Nope, it's easier to hide in the sky than land or water. Water is so dangerous, their is a lot of enemy to comprehend. With projectiles going down, enemy will just need little energy to attack. While in air with US perfect stealth there only few attacks to watch out, but even an enemy would detect them they will need more energy to launch an attack. Since projectiles going up consumes a lot of energy. Example weapons like cannons, high caliber bullets, small missiles, and torpedoes can't reach them only fighter jets and medium to bigger size missiles can reach them. Besides since ancient times there is always so called higher ground advantages. The higher you are the more invincible you will for any attacks. Same as goes to the sky.

@@getssmith112 are you kidding me? I can't fly higher than 10k feet otherwise people on deck would need their own breathable oxygen while trying to maintain operations. As far as stealth, there's no way you can make it hard to be noticable or targeted with everything going on and around it.

@@lharris428 have you ever heard of low orbit? And how does astronauts live in space for months?

@@getssmith112 you do know China has hypersonic missiles, right?

Not if they use the "technology" stored at Area 51.

You could drop a jet tho

But at least they can spell 'sailor.'

And/or pigs

Because that and missile submarines are the heart of the USA military might

"""""Tactically, it would be a HUGE target as well.""" So is Moscow and Beijing 😂

Yup very awe-inspiring

핵에너지가 있어면 날으는 전함을 만들수 없는건가?

How the Avengers managed to move his aircarrier throught air without being hit by his foes rockets?

Not if it had radar similar to AWAC. Although it would not be maneuverable because of its size

Not to mention operating cost. Better just permanently hook up a fuel line to the ground and have it be stationary lol

For real 🤔

It will just engage it's cloaking device yo!🤣

Captain Marvel is running the show now.

Or use nuclear power

@@jasonrock5220 ⁰

@@jasonrock5220 half of the aircraft fleet of the U.S is nuclear power.

At that point it may as well be a space craft. You could not even walk on the platform without a oxygen mask. & You will need special clothing to stop you freezing at high altitude. Stupid video, concept that will never work.

Roswell shit...right there....😊

EURO. STUDIO. KHẮC. thêm 144 số không

Still those ground effect vehicles failed too, aka the Caspian sea monster, if they stop moving they are just a sitting floating/duck, plus they only worked well in calm flat/water conditions, had a very limited range ... combat hovercrafts n landing vehicles also were just a passing fad though offered lower speed but more consistent performance plus could leave the water to some degree.

The Russians don't even have a working naval aircraft carrier

They could camouflage the carrier like they do in the avengers? Lol

@@ngriffo45 exactly largely because the Russians for all their faults which are many don't seek or want to leverage large parts of the world for geopolitical power ... they do want some of the vauge resource rich enthno-russian territories lost in the breakup/fall of the USSR/CCCP ... still they sit on a crazy amount of intercontinental nuclear weapons etc so they are sitting pretty ... while the USA rubs up against China in the South Chinese sea ... that's a long way from Neu York let alone Washington

Plus developing both a sea based carrier and the jets that can/could fly of it is expensive... very expensive ... especially in the age of the 6th generation combat fighters n bombers ... why bother when your own country spans 4 time zones ... fronts onto most other problem nations or allies ... aircraft carriers are expensive, air bases on your borders less so

Ww3 won’t let that happen sorry

@@chazayah5985 sad

mất CÂY. CAO SU. VN. SCIENCE. WORLD. NGƯỜI VẬN CHUYÊN. Ô TÔ. WIFI. NUÔI

Power overwhelming!!!

Stfu if Russia or china attacked you would be not worried about tax money because you would be stuck hiding from nuclear fall out .

Lol

I used to live in Chandler heights Arizona, I had as close a look to it as anyone could have had. It flew right past me and it was very big, totally silent. But not shaped like an aircraft carrier. Shaped like the stealth bomber, but big enough at least, to park two bombers on each wing.

@@wytche3546 Wow. Have there been any other sightings that you know of? Or could you recommend any videos or sources? I find the incident fascinating and I really want to know more.

Nah. Pretty sure the USAF keeps Dr. Strange on retainer in case of strong gusts and/or melodramatic flying villains👌

Since when is anything from the the military current tech

Exactly why bother when you can have f35s n etc based on land in friendly nations ... the aircraft carrier concept died with 2nd world war ... when long range missiles nuclear n biological let alone intercontinental made that concept/doctrine redundant.

Haha the laws of physics always apply, just ask Elon Musk who pretends they don't ... but year in year out his products n promises either underperform, are years late and then garbage ... he can't even get his space trucks out, aka EV trucks n Utes with a ripped off design asthetic from Battlestar Galactica (OG) ... let alone his autonomous self driving software or the helper robot nobody wants in their house!

@@Gesso64 US military tech is always ahead of the field, but not far enough ahead for anything like this. Unless they've perfected some sort of antigravity tech, this isn't happening. More to the point, if they've perfected antigravity tech, this wouldn't be necessary. Lol

The true laws of physics are classified.

We already have those ... aka fast attack jets that can in air refuel off a mother tanker or tankers to extend their range/standoff time but the concept of a flying air base is about as practical as a flying aircraft carrier ... As in what's the point? The crew can only be in air for so many hours ... the mechanical engines n gubbins need maintenance n downtime, both can easily be defeated with tracking n missiles ... I'll believe it when Elon Musk tells us its the future :p and he's not even that dumb!

The biggest viable plane that could carry other planes is the Russian Antonov ... it could carry 2 m1a1 Abrams tanks, is slow, guzzles fuel, needs innordately long runways ... so could technically carry 2 mid sized fighters, if you could figure out how to launch them as it has a front lifting nosecone which that ain't happening! Or you just push em out the back ramp and hope the engines fire up ... oddly your pragmatic idea of a plane based plane system is even worse than a flying aircraft carrier! Which is sorta impressive! :)

🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 they could build a small carrier .1 big plane carrying 1 small fighter jet like space shuttle plane it's the only logical solution 1 big plane carrying a fighter jet close to battle and then leave it to fly to save fuel 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷👋🙏🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿☮☮☮🇺🇦🇷🇺🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👑👋🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Blame your local politicians on that one.

It's called The Military Industrial Complex

This whole thing is bs dude

It's fictional rubbish. Dislike crap content like this.

LOL. Not the brightest bulb, are ya?

Better to sink than to take a 50k feet dive into the ocean

Exactly, while the ocean holds you up ... the sky let's you fall ... It's simple really, take one countries advanced weapon system then develop a cheap counter measure ... aka 100 million dollar fighter vs 500k anti fighter rocket ... May not take it out but will stand it off/disrupt it's ability to be effective... think the NVA with Russian Sam's vs the USAF in Vietnam... they backed off the most advanced n militaria aggressive country on earth with basic fire n forget rockets ...

Like someone already said in the comments, it's easier to swim then to fly

Considering its running on 4 turbine propellers. Im sure it'll be fine

Most likely nuclear reactors aswell

@@dusk07 true

I can't even imagine. Just the turbine blades will be millions of pounds. I can't believe they will fly around with multiple air wings aboard, possibly try to have another carrier 100 miles away for stowing aircraft, and just be used to refuel or get really close to targets. I was in the gear, so I'm very interested to see.

That's one of the key factors in my prototype --- it can't be The Avengers, but it can be. If you're interested in how feasible my idea is I'll be glad to send you a free copy of my thriller CODE NAME: Monte Rico, where I invented five new weapons. I actually did the calculations for how this would work --- tweak the parameters, not that hard.

@@theinformationcollector833 Now imagine a sorty of 4 or 5 of these planes with 4 drones each plane. Any military skirmish could be over in hours. Like a symphony orchestra 🎻.

@@jessmason2112 Very true --- and that tech is WWII level. Marilyn Monroe was discovered cause she worked in a drone plant the photographer went to shoot pictures at. They were basically RC models used for target practice, but still drones.

@@theinformationcollector833 Regardless of when the idea came about. If that idea with today's technology would make that sorty untouchable. What a major deterrent that would be to take out a terrorist group or area in one shot with no boots on the ground.

Justin Bulgherini That's the scary thing! The Biden administration is insane!

The first aircraft carriers were *dirigibles?* No, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Granted, the USAF was only created as a separate service in 1947, but the origins of its predecessor, the United States Army Air Corps, go all the way back to the First World War. However, the USAF has never operated any aircraft carriers of any kind, and probably never will, so I hardly think the date of its creation is even remotely relevant to your absurd claim to the effect that, "the first aircraft carriers were airships." In reality, both the Royal Navy and the US Navy started developing aircraft carriers years before the aircraft-carrying airships (of which there were only ever two) were ever built. The Royal Navy's earliest attempt at developing an aircraft carrier was during the First World War, and used modified Sopwith Pup fighters with an elongated skid attached to their undercarriage. The US Navy's first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley, was already in service years before the "airship aircraft carriers" ever flew. Furthermore, the only two airship carriers ever built could only carry a handful of fighters, and the "trapeze" style aircraft launch/ recovery system never really worked out. Meanwhile, naval carriers could carry dozens of fighters and attack planes. Additionally, there's also the fact that both of the US's "aircraft carrier airships" ended up as complete write-offs after encountering trecherous weather conditions. I believe one was called the "USS Akron," and the other the "USS Macon." If I recall correctly, one was lost off the east coast while the other was lost off the west coast, although I'm not entirely certain about that last detail. Neither the Germans, the British nor any other major military power ever even *tried* to develop "aircraft carrier airships," despite what you might have seen in "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade."🤣 So no, airship aircraft carriers were *not* the first aircraft carriers, and the only two ever built proved to be a very short-lived and costly experiment that ended in *abject failure* both in terms of material costs and lives lost.

@@That70sGuitarist First it's not true and then it is true. Try a proof read.

@@jlawrencereilly1949 You need to work on your reading comprehension, because you obviously misunderstood what I wrote. Let's review, shall we? First, I disproved your erroneous claim that *the first aircraft carriers were dirigibles.* They weren't, as stated. Then I showed that the only two attempts at building aircraft carrier dirigibles, which happened years AFTER the first naval aircraft carriers were developed, proved to be complete and utter failures. So just to be crystal clear, let's go over it one last time; I never claimed that aircraft carrier dirigibles *never existed,* I simply refuted your false claim that they were *the first aircraft carriers.* They weren't, in fact; both the Royal Navy and US Navy began developing naval aircraft carriers years before the USS Macon and Akron were ever built, thus making the Macon/Akron definitively *not the first aircraft carriers.* That was the whole point, which you somehow managed to miss.🤣 So what have we learned from this? Well, we've learned that you were 100% *wrong* about dirigibles being *the first aircraft carriers* because they definitely weren't; we've also learned that dirigible aircraft carriers didn't work once they were tried, years *after* the first naval aircraft carriers were built; and we've learned that you have trouble understanding written English.🤣 You might want to work on that, chum.😉

@@That70sGuitarist None or the hydrogen fill airships worked but the fact is England built flying airships that they did successfully launch and retrieve a sopwith camel aircraft and because of how difficult and the crashes they decommissioned them and the US Navy came along in 1924 with their first water based carrier. although the nave tried again in 1031. I think your the one with a comprehension issue. Actually no need to review.

@@jlawrencereilly1949 "the navy tried again in 1031...?" And which navy was that, exactly? The Norman navy?🤣