Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "" video.

  1. The US CVNs and the UK carriers are design very differently
    2
  2. is that a supportable goal
    2
  3. Those capabilities are in the pipe line still with the SPEAR-3 program The UK could short cut by buying GBU-53 and SIAW but that would affect the SPEAR-3 program
    2
  4. The UK would have to build a completely new reactor up from scratch which is very expensive and would greatly increase the cost They were considering but EMALS wasnt mature enough for them to take the risk
    2
  5.  @gabehorn1001  Wrong wrong and wrong CVNs carry nearly 4 million gallons of fuel which is a mix of aviation fuel for aircraft and marine fuel for its escorts. A Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is a carrier plus 4 escorts, 1 sub and one resupply ship The CVN has enough fuel and supplies to resupply the entire fleet if needed Name one time someone actually scored a hit on CVN
    1
  6.  @gabehorn1001  Carriers are supposed vulnerable yet China is building both conventional and nuclear. India has plans for nuclear carrier. France is working on the PANG also nuclear The countries that are building conventional carriers either dont have reactor technology or wont due to cost Effectively all the major players are still building carriers despite so called claims of them being vulnerable to supposed attack. Lets look at the QE short comings thanks to cost less The CVN is protected by 2 ESSM launchers and 2 RAMs plus 3 CIWS whereas the QE class only has 3 CIWS for self defense The Ford class radars designed work with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) allow for seamless communication and integrated fire control with its escorts and aircraft whereas the QE class ? The QE is plans for the 50kW Dragonfire laser whereas the laser weapons planned for the Ford are the same 150kw-600kW planned for the DDGX as the Ford's reactors can easily support sustained 600kW shots thanks its 700 MW reactors plus can support even 1 MW weapons whereas the QE IEP only generates 119 MW lets look at air wing No organic , EW or tanker, has rely solely on land based assets. its only AWACS is helicopter AWACS which is vastly inferior as its the Crownest AWACS cant go higher than 15K feet whereas the E-2D operates at 25K feet with ease FYI the reactor has walls of shielding and protection unlike Russia ships. The father of the nuclear navy, Hyman G. Rickover ran the USN nuclear reactor program for decades and had zero incidents thanks stringent rules regarding construction and operation. The odds of enemy successfully striking the reactor are 1 in million Oh yes, porting a ship and it being stationary for how many hours is not vulnerably I say with sarcasm
    1
  7. Carriers are supposed vulnerable yet China is building both conventional and nuclear. India has plans for nuclear carrier. France is working on the PANG also nuclear The countries that are building conventional carriers either dont have reactor technology or wont due to cost Effectively all the major players are still building carriers despite so called claims of them being vulnerable to supposed attack. Lets look at the QE short comings thanks to cost less The CVN is protected by 2 ESSM launchers and 2 RAMs plus 3 CIWS whereas the QE class only has 3 CIWS for self defense The Ford class radars designed work with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) allow for seamless communication and integrated fire control with its escorts and aircraft whereas the QE class ? The QE is plans for the 50kW Dragonfire laser whereas the laser weapons planned for the Ford are the same 150kw-600kW planned for the DDGX as the Ford's reactors can easily support sustained 600kW shots thanks its 700 MW reactors plus can support even 1 MW weapons whereas the QE IEP only generates 119 MW lets look at air wing No organic , EW or tanker, has rely solely on land based assets. its only AWACS is helicopter AWACS which is vastly inferior as its the Crownest AWACS cant go higher than 15K feet whereas the E-2D operates at 25K feet with ease FYI the reactor has walls of shielding and protection unlike Russia ships. The father of the nuclear navy, Hyman G. Rickover ran the USN nuclear reactor program for decades and had zero incidents thanks stringent rules regarding construction and operation. The odds of enemy successfully striking the reactor are 1 in million Oh yes, porting a ship and it being stationary for how many hours is not vulnerably I say with sarcasm
    1