Do We Still Need Aircraft Carriers?

The aircraft carrier - an iconic symbol of naval might for the last 75 years. In essence a mobile airfield, aircraft carriers can bring to bear the firepower of a small air force onto any enemy with, or near a coastline. Yet with new weapons such as hypersonic missiles being developed by nations around the world, is the aircraft carrier being made obsolete?

That’s what we’ll find out today, in this episode of The Infographics Show- Do we still need aircraft carriers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEBSITE (SUGGEST A TOPIC):

SUPPORT US:

SOCIAL:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources for this episode:

[TheInfographicsShow]

Should the US start using smaller, lighter aircraft carriers instead of supercarriers in use today to prevent a catastrophic loss of so many lives in a single attack?

[cameron]

Do we still need The Infographics Show?

[JuniorJuni]

If you want total domination on the battlefield. Yes.

[just-a-silly-goofy-guy]

Yes. You can store so many dvd copies of Shrek on it lmao

[Versaucey]

Hi random person scrolling, I just wanna say have a nice day.

[xenon]

The US be like: "Hey, we already have more carriers than the rest of the world combined. Let's build another 10 nuclear supercarriers!😶😂

[aakashbrahmbhatt]

Hypersonic missiles at Mach 2-3? By definition Hypersonic missiles travel at > Mach 5
Transonic @Mach 0.8 to 1.2
Supersonic @ Mach 1.2 to 5
Hypersonic @ > Mach 5

[jennifunny]

Every one of these videos now has that one guy in the comments telling you to have a nice day lol

[zach]

Yes aircraft carries provide a huge advantage on the battlefield. First of all they are essentially a floating air force base with everything essential for aircraft support that can be moved anywhere in the word relatively quickly. Whereas setting up an actual airforce base near the intended target country would be quite involved. From finding a suitable space, transporting the airframes, parts and tools for maintenance, fuel, weapons, and personnel. While there is a threat to aircraft carriers it will always be safer and more cost effective due to their mobility and ability to be in the fight faster than setting up a land based air force base.

[TheBHAitken]

The problem with smaller ships is shorter rotation, no matter which aspect you look at. Can you really establish a presence when you have to turn right around to resupply?

[cocconoce]

Just build islands with planes on it duh

[fanOmry]

Yes. You do.

1. It's a mobile base. Thus can be relocated with relative ease.

2. They can carry a lot of supplies.

I.E. they can remain long term anywhere. They can repair vessels on site.

3. Derivative of both 1 and 2.

They can carrie Plains and their fuel everywhere.

[djbdyckfbsgsg]

If your reading this, your probably living a better life than alot of people. Appreciate it.

[charliegamble]

Well I bloody hope so Britain’s just made 2

[thelastcasualty]

Obviously, they are moving airfields that can strike targets at great distances, and provide supplies and medical needs to ground forces.

[Jack-idgm]

Me: Of Course We Do, What A Dumb Question.
Vsauce: Or Do We?
Me: Aircraft Carriers In This Modern Day Are Absolutely Dumb And Useless.

[mos]

Of course we do, unless you can land a fighter on water

[kendo]

Love you infographics and you usually get everything spot on, I'm just being picky but don't forget ships also come equipped with CRAM's (counter rocket artillery and mortar) which are just huge miniguns, that shoot at projectiles coming towards a ship

[YAH]

Of course you need them. they're super valuable and just because new tech and tactics are starting up doesnt mean they're super obsolete suddenly. The US military already thinks of these things.

[TheNinjaDC]

China: "Modern missiles make aircraft carriers worthless."
Also China: "We have 4 more aircraft carriers in production, each one larger than the next!"

Yeah, China's anti-ship ballistic missiles are a paper tiger. China's ballistic missiles are less accurate against stationary targets than Russia or the US missiles. Hitting a moving target going 30knots, hundreds of miles away is astronomically harder, and require a high quality weapon's lock. The only feasible way is to have heavily networked systems, where an aircraft can send weapon a quality radar signature data to mid flight ballistic missile. That's a cluster f*ck when people are not trying to shoot you.

But, hell. Let's say China can get a good-enough networking system in place that works, they'd still have to get an aircraft within less than 100 miles of an aircraft carrier battle group, for a good length of time. Put simply, that would be suicide.