Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Is the Navy’s $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?" video.

  1. ''But to paraphrase The Chieftain:” the Military is based on Capabilities, not vulnerabilities.” You gotta consider both relative to the opponents'. ''Until something comes along and offers the long range power projection and strike capability a Carrier can, it’s going nowhere.'' So long as air superiority is maintained.
    6
  2.  @peterisawesomeplease  ''It is also not a good idea to trust what the US military says. The US military has a long history of building massively expensive projects of little military value due to pressure from politics or the military industrial complex.'' Yes, Billy Mitchell found out the hard way! As for my own objective analysis, aircraft carriers can make force projection more efficient and effective than without, so long as you have either the air superiority or have a very good chance of gaining air superiority. If not, then air craft carriers are money pits, and gigantic waste of resources. For U.S. for present, carriers are assets, within reason, especially against PRC. But in the future, where U.S. might have less chance of gaining air superiority, USN should gradually downsize the number of carriers. Unless it is for the purpose of launching suborbital fighter force, rather than conventional carrier tasks. For majority of countries out there, carriers are a waste of money. Just because a superpower has and uses them, it doesn't mean they should emulate the superpowers, unless they are contenders.
    4
  3.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko ''A barrage of missiles can take out any target even if the country has the best air defense, so it can certainly sink an aircraft carrier. The military tactic is called SEAD'' Assuming one has the air superiority. What if your opponents can see you on their radar first, and have the longer range SAMs, than your planes' ASMs and have the ability to render your radars useless?
    4
  4.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''SEAD okay how are you going take out all the anti air in a carrier strike group. That is a lot of guided missiles required that can track moving ships, which China doesn't even have.'' There's a new technology emerging, sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that can make the carrier's entire radar guided missiles useless.
    3
  5.  @aaronleverton4221  '' 1. And that is why Carrier Battle Groups exist, for the purpose of creating pickets and rings of defence. 2. Just ask the Argentinians, who sank exactly zero Royal Navy aircraft carriers in 1982.'' New technology emerging: sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that can render the entire radar guided missiles within the fleet useless.
    3
  6.  @smithnwesson990  ''I believe Carriers should be followed by two unmanned drone ships like they have prototyped.'' You mean, 'Arsonal Ship'? ''Basically two 200 foot long missile carries that are linked to the radar of the carrier and can carry over 80 ESSM or missiles for defense allowing the carrier to tap into massive amounts of air care missile defense missiles to protect it and allowing them destroyed and rest of care care care group carry more anti ship or land attack missiles.'' Good in concept, but there's a new emerging technology: Sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that can render all radar guided missiles within the fleet useless.
    3
  7.  @ryanj610  Aircraft carriers can be extremely useful, and even efficient, provided you have the air superiority.
    3
  8. ''the ability to use satellites,...'' Defending the space, and dominating the space should be the highest priority.
    2
  9. Can you tell me why USN hasn't adopted RN QE Twin Tower configuration for the Ford class? French navy has adopted RN QE TT configuration as well, and so will ROKN for her first aircraft carrier. I don't think aircraft carriers are obsolete so long as you have a good chance of obtaining air superiority. ROKN is planning to build up to 8 aircraft carriers by 2050, divided into 4 aircraft carrier groups (not the biggest, but still bigger than RN QE, and technologically most advanced, combining RN TT configuration, and FN K22 reactor, with ROK's own modular mini-nuclear reactors, for better redundancy, and safer disposal of nuclear fuels, and easier refuel/repair as well). ROKN will be using low grade civilian uranium, not to run afoul of any nuclear treaties, why ROK has chosen K22 reactor design from FN. Btw. I found out more about the advantage of AESA radar on KF-21 over AESA radar on F-35. For starters, AESA on KF-21 is more reliable under hard use than AESA radar on F-35: It is more vibration resistant, and high heat stable. But the real game changer is in the radar performance: AESA radar on KF-21 can focus on an image on the screen and magnify it by 20 fold, to discern whether the image represents a bird, or a stealth plane. This feature can be preprogrammed to auto focus on any image on the screen. Also, AESA radar on KF-21 is far more modular than AESA on F-35. It is designed to work 70% capacity even when some of the components are broken; AESA radar on F-35 is 100% off when one or more parts fail. ROK has the radar tested by IDF, and IDF was impressed enough to offer co-production deal, but ROK has chosen Leonardo of Italy, for marketing purposes. ROK doesn't want to piss off MBS, when he's expected to order 300 to 500 KF-21s soon, and Leonardo also has more sales leads in ME, and Africa than IDF. The idea is that while still expensive, ROK AESA radar is a lot more affordable to the budgets of the 3rd world countries in ME, and Africa, most of which cannot even afford 3rd gen fighter jets, and ROK AESA radar will make these countries far less vulnerable to SEAD by 5th gen fighter jets, when used either for AD, or for their AFs. ROK will make a lot of money, and build a lot of support at UN, and hopefully, after getting used to ROK AESA radars, many of them will choose KF-21 for their AFs later on. Btw. FN wants to build an operational agreement with ROKN, and UK RAF wants to build a pilot training program with ROK AF, together. I think UK has given up on 'Tempest', after ditching Japan as a partner. The word I hear is that both RAF and RN recommend UK to buy 60 KF-21s, only needing approval from PM, who has political consideration besides the military consideration. I think U.S. needs to fix the 3 deficiencies of F-35 before moving on to NGAD: Don't put the cart before the horse. Unless, those 3 deficiencies are solved first, U.S. will be just wasting money and time, and get even further behind. Wouldn't it be great if U.S. spent money on fixing these 3 instead of Ukraine? A lot of good paying jobs for the Americans.
    2
  10.  @thomasb5600  ''Countries are working on these already. An Australian company produces hand held Anti-Drone weapon that use no ammo, let’s see how that progress when attached to vehicles. The U.S. has Anti-Drone laser for vehicles(Land & Sea), then individual large or swarm of drones is not going to be as useful as appearance in Ukraine might seem.'' Drones are not the future, too much bandwidth hog, and vulnerable to easy jamming. ''Due to Russias recent action they are not going to be the country where new weapon tech will be coming from NATO, Israel, Singapore, Australia or China, however South Korea, Taiwan, Japan or India we might see something new too.'' ROK has already finished the test flight for UCAVs at the squadron level, with no human observers.
    2
  11.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  ''That's the point of SEAD, which is to take deplete all the rounds and SAMs until the ship can't defend itself. That's when to inflict massive damage to the enemy ship.'' So far so good. ''So, they do have the capability to destroy US aircraft carrier by launching dozens of MIRV missiles to overwhelm the air defense and take out the aircraft carrier'' There's a new emerging technology: Sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that renders all radar guided missiles useless.
    2
  12.  @wesleyfravel5149  ''you need to beat the Aor defense of at least 4-5 ship in a carrier fleet to do that however. That’s a lot of Air defense to break through just to get a shot at a Carrier.'' There's a new emerging technology: Sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that renders all radar guided missiles useless.
    2
  13.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  '' The concept of a weapons depot on a ship carrying fighter jets and helicopters is obsolete when there are hypersonic and MIRV missiles that can strike with pinpoint accuracy'' Especially, if you have the advantage of sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that can make the entire fleet's radar guided missiles useless.
    2
  14.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''and you are ignoring the fact that there are no guided missiles that can track ships. To hit moving target you have to track it first.... MIRVS guidance system doesn't do well against moving targets, it does great against stationary targets. Since MIRVS wasn't designed to track moving targets and were designed to carry nuclear warheads.... You are not going use nuclear warheads in SEADS...'' So far so good. ''And Hypersonic missiles can be handle by AA Ukraine war has shown that.'' How did the Ukranian AA handle the hypersonic missiles? ''And their guidance isn't set up to track a moving ship either. I wanted to stress that because just because there is guidance systems doesn't mean they can track moving targets. And current hypersonic missiles are not meant for moving targets either.'' 3M22 Zircon can track ships.
    2
  15.  @Randomusername56782  ''and the u.s still used battleships until the 1990s you relieze that right?'' Only because U.S. had air supremacy, you realize that, right?
    2
  16.  @verdebusterAP  PLA claim is always suspect; too many vaporwares.
    2
  17.  @andreivaldez2929  Didn't the general Billy Mitchell exactly do that and got court marshalled about aircraft carrier vs. battleships?
    2
  18.  @Gainersy  ''And if you have your head in the clouds about future tech, the development of directed energy systems is coming along to counter any such swarm ideas'' How would directed energy systems track the enemy hypersonic cruise missiles?
    2
  19.  @onceuponadime978  ''Well unless we start building islands like China that capability will always be necessary'' Far more important is securing the control of the space; you lose the control of the space, enemy can disable GPS.
    2
  20.  @Psycho52599  '' Sure, we may not be too far off from robots In the form of ground units/ Soldiers But even where we are with those technologies, we may not start seeing them fully operational for another decade with the exception of drones.'' Pibot, and Raibo ''Plus America could also take out chinese satellites greatly degrading their capability for their missiles and surveillance.'' Securing the control of the space should come first before anything. What do you think of suborbital fighter, like X-15 of yore?
    2
  21.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''It is all good, I just think it is funny idea of using ICBM's that are designed to carry nukes to take out aircraft carriers.'' Gamer dude/millennial ''And for that large of ICBM to be hypersonic also... would require it to grow in size to be able to store all the fuel it would need to go hypersonic.'' Actually, technically all ICBMs are hypersonic. However, when people use the term, 'hypersonic', they really mean hypersonic cruise missiles. Do you think someday, sensor technology can develop to the point of locating the silo-based ICBMs in CONUS, from satelliters, and attacking them with hypersonic, stealth cruise missiles to disable, and to detonate the nuclear warheads?
    2
  22.  @donmedford2563  ''A lot can change in the next 10 years as far as tracking ability'' Already, multi-band spectrum stealth coating has been developed to make planes 'slippery' from radar lock, rendering the VBR radar guided missiles useless. Also, sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that makes all radars useless when directed against them.
    2
  23.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  ''"you overestimate Missile tech" The same can be said for US made SAMs. It is unlikely that it can shoot down all the oncoming missiles and drones'' Especially, when you have your missiles coated with the multi-band spectrum stealth coating that makes the missiles 'slippery' from radar lock, making SAMs useless. Also, sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that makes the enemy radar useless as well.
    2
  24.  @penultimateh766  ''Which is why employing them requires an intelligent, outstanding commander who can strike the enemy first. We lost quite a few in WWII but made the OTHER guy lose more...'' U.S. victory in WW2 was due to the logistical superiority, and both superior grand and naval strategies. Not due to some outstanding commanders.
    2
  25.  @penultimateh766  ''Not in the South Pacific it didn't'' USN did. After the battle of Savo Island, USN aircraft carriers nearby scram, and hightailed it out of there FAST.
    2
  26.  @kolinmartz  ''even if they do have anti ship defense, those will be mitigated. Any domain of warfare is a system of systems. It’s never going to be a vacuum. The same way you’re not gonna send a lone infantryman to go secure a piece of terrain. You’re not gonna send an aircraft carrier or even a carrier strike group by itself.'' What if the enemy has sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that makes the radar guided missiles useless?
    2
  27.  @elswagmaster6992  ''you're going to need hundreds, not an exaggeration, you're dealing with the escorts and the scrambled aircraft among other less relevant forms of defense like DECM or the phalanx. It isn't a matter of getting lucky it's a matter of overwhelming the defense and actually hitting it enough to sink the damn thing.'' What if the enemy has sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that makes all radars within the fleet useless?
    2
  28.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  ''No country in the world can defend against a coordinated attack using a barrage of missiles.'' They can if they use sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that makes radar guided missiles useless.
    2
  29.  @bluemarlin8138  ''Good luck doing that when the carrier is escorted by 7 ships that carry a hundred SAMs each, not even counting close range missiles and 20mm cannons.'' Sonar based anti-radar jamming technology can make all radars within the fleet useless.
    2
  30.  @kbo8029  ''Supersonic, anti-carrier missiles and other A2/AD haven't exactly proven their effectiveness'' Aircraft carrier hadn't either against the battleships before WW2.
    2
  31.  @stevegarcia2962  ''Swarms of cheap drones will deplete all the highly expensive missile defenses....in come the the jet fighters...a turkey shoot'' They can use lasers instead.
    2
  32.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''With the US made patriot battery of ADA, hypersonic missile is just a faster than average missile, ...'' Zircon max speed Mach 9 Patriot max speed Mach 4.1 It's a little faster than average missile, in fact, twice the speed of Patriot. ''If it can be tracked with a radar it can be shot down.'' What if it is equipped with multi band spectrum stealth coating? ''Speed doesn't mean that it can't be tracked or shot down.'' No, it depends on the distance to the hypersonic missile, the closer the hypersonic missile, the harder to track and intercept. Not only that it also depends on how maneuverable the hypersonic missile is, both in speed, and vector. The weakness of most hypersonic missiles today, including Zircon is that the speed is not variable, but constant once it reaches the hypersonic stage, still very fast. ''The high speed of the Zircon likely gives it better target-penetration characteristics than lighter subsonic cruise-missiles, such as Tomahawk. Being twice as heavy and almost eleven times as fast as Tomahawk, the Zircon has more than 242 times the on-cruise kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (≈9 gigajoules, or equal to 2,150 kg TNT explosive energy). Its claimed Mach 9 speed would mean that it cannot be intercepted by existing missile defence systems, and its precision would make it lethal to large targets such as aircraft carriers.[53][54]'' Also, there is another weakness to not only Zircon, but all hypersonic cruise missiles, the inability to use radar, IR seeker or anti-radar jamming technology against the enemy radar guided missiles, due to its extreme speed, once the hypersonic speed is reached. ''Zircon can travel at a speed of Mach 8 (6,100 mph; 9,800 km/h; 2.7 km/s). This has led to concerns[neutrality is disputed] that it could penetrate existing naval defense systems.[55] Because it flies at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere, air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems (plasma stealth).[56] However, this also blinds any radar or IR seeker on the missile. With plasma stealth, hypersonic-speed and sea skimming technique, intercepting a flying Zircon is extremely difficult, if at all feasible at the current level of technology. The final section of the trajectory is completed in minimal time (under 10 seconds), so the enemy will likely not have time to carry out all the necessary procedures to intercept it.[57] Zircon exchanges information in flight and can be controlled by commands if necessary.[58]'' But ROK has developed its own hypersonic cruise missile, hycore. Its unique advantage over Zircon is that ROK has perfected reliable way of turning on/off on the ramjet/scramjet hybrid engine on demand, in real time, once the engine has been ignited, during mid flight. It therefore, could vary its speed, making the interception that much more difficult than even Zircon, more maneuverable, and with the ability to 'glide' between on, and off phase, and extending the range as much as 400% of Zircon, and the ability to use radar and its sonar based anti-radar jamming technology during sub hypersonic phase, for accurate tracking of the target, and rendering the enemy radar useless, and once close enough, going for hypersonic speed to the target. It will also be equipped with multi-band spectrum stealth coating, against both radar, and infrared, making the missile not only stealth, but also radar-lock 'proof'/resistant, even if the enemy radar somehow detects it, they won't be able to 'lock' it.
    2
  33.  @verdebusterAP  Up to 90% downtime on their jets, due to the engine. Their paper strength cannot be taken at face value, 9 out of 10 planes NA for repair.
    2
  34. ​ @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''And no MRIVS are not hypersonic either. You really don't know what in hell you are talking about.'' - ​ @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas MRIVs are hypersonic, above Mach 5, just not hypersonic cruising.
    2
  35.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''And for that large of ICBM to be hypersonic also... would require it to grow in size to be able to store all the fuel it would need to go hypersonic. I wasn't going against you, just pointing out how clueless they are.'' ICBMs are hypersonic, above Mach 5.
    2
  36.  @fmayer1507  ''Good point, how are you gone take out all the DE weapons?'' DE weapon cannot track hypersonic missiles at hypersonic velocity due to plasma stealth being developed.
    2
  37.  @fmayer1507  ''Directed energy weapons that fry all attackers in second will make everyone think again.'' DE weapon cannot track hypersonic missile at hypersonic stage, due to plasma stealth being developed in front of the missile.
    2
  38.  @Meinan4370  ''aircraft carriers move pretty fast for missiles to accurately hit as well as have some much defense and ship escorts'' Then why do they try to stay away from the enemy missile range as much as possible?
    2
  39.  @dqdq4083  ''nah, energy prices too high'' They are actually cheaper, and getting cheaper, and more powerful.
    2
  40.  @duke9555  Billy Mitchell got court martialed for pointing out the obvious.
    2
  41.  @JoeZorzin  Not necessarily if they have air superiority.
    2
  42.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Plasma stealth only works against Doppler radars, not array radars like almost everyone uses now, the only people who say plasma stealth makes the missiles completely untrackable also say dumb things like just jam yourself out of all your problems.'' Dude, I was talking about metamaterial based stealth technology. 'jae won hahn, stealth'
    2
  43.  @jumpjet88  ICBMs are already hypersonic.
    2
  44. Is there a reason why USN hasn't adopted the Twin Tower configuration like RN, and the French Navy?
    2
  45. ''I'm an ex- submarine guy and can tell you that aircraft carriers are ridiculously vulnerable to submarine attack. That said, they are great against opponents who don't have a modern submarine force and do have something of a chance if the attack subs in their task force are able to detect submerged enemies before they get in to firing range.'' So far so good, why ROKN is putting more emphasis on subs than carrier force. Btw. ROKN subs have been very successful in RIMPAC over the years. ''In surface warfare, even an overwhelming missile attack has little chance against a modern carrier task force and the cost of such an attack would be in the billions - so no, Iran can't send a bunch of speed boats out to overwhelm it.'' Not necessarily, against sonar based anti-radar jamming hypersonic cruise missiles to be built soon.
    2
  46.  @mrvwbug4423  ''They have the best missile defense system in the world.'' Yes, they do. ''The DDGs escorting our carriers can shoot down satellites.'' They can as of now. If you're talking about RIM-161, they are guided by GPS, radar, and infrared. But not the satellites to be coated stealth coating against radar, and infrared, especially radar-lock resistant stealth coating, without radar lock, radar guided missiles are useless; all very recently developed. You can google Hahn Jae Won, stealth, or Jae Won Hahn, stealth.
    1
  47.  @jameszeveney7148  Yes, Carriers could be very useful for the launching pad for the suborbital fighter force, kinda like X-15, instead of wasting money on Ukraine.
    1
  48.  @stijnvdv2  ''Missiles changed warfare, missiles are the new air domination.'' Missiles have been around for a while; it's the satellites, especially the microsatellites that can be mass launched from fighter jets at ultra high altitude to low orbit, in real time, on demand, economically, AND stealth, radar jamming technology. ''Ukraine proved that and the US military is not up to snuff....'' U.S. military is up to snuff, but has been in wars it had not been trained to fight, and wars, that U.S. should not have been involved with, in the first place. ''..sure it can fight insurgence in the Middle East with AK47's and blankets...'' At tactical level, at strategic level, it showed it could not. ''it can not however win an actual serious war, such as the one they are currently provoking with Russia and China.'' It can against PRC, real easy, but against Russia? Btw. It is PRC that is provoking U.S. and others; U.S. is not provoking PRC.
    1
  49.  @TylerWardhaha  What about subs with super torpedoes?
    1
  50.  @TylerWardhaha  ''Subs are outside my knowledge base. However, we have sub tracking for both the atlantic and pacific.'' Stealth subs would be harder to track. Btw. The anechoic tiles the Columbia class is going to be using is already obsolete, kinda like the stealth coating on F-35. They work, but are not durable; ROKN had already tested them. Too much downtime on drydock. Good for MIC, bad for USN, and the tax payers. ROKN is going to be using metamaterials based coating on subs; lifetime durability, and more effective than anechoic tiles. ROKN subs have been extremely successful in RIMPAC. You can google, 'Wonjae Choi, underwater stealth', and go to Kriss link. ''When it comes to defense of a carrier, detecting subs in the responsibility of the destroyers and any subs in escort.'' In the future, it's going to be more 3 dimensional; ROK AF is going to be planning to use microsatellites launched by fighter jets into low orbit, from ultra high altitude, and using advanced sensors to detect SLBMs, to neutralize them. ''Also I have no idea what you mean my super torpedos.'' Supercavitating torpedo Also, in the future, subs could become a lot smaller, unmanned, crewed by A.I. robots, after commissioning, go to the likely path of the high value targets, and just stay there, 'hibernate' till needed. You can google, 'pibot', and go to newsatlas article. It's planned for planes, MBTs, SPGs, and Subs as well.
    1
  51.  @TylerWardhaha  ''When it comes to detecting SLBMS, or any BM, I can tell you our tech is already pretty advanced. Unfortunately all I can on it is trust me bro'' Oh, I believe you it is pretty advanced. But is it advanced enough to enough to identify the enemy ICBMs and SLBMs, before they are launched, ALL OF THEM? ''It will be interesting to see how drones start figuring in to the equation'' Drones are bandwidth hogs; they cannot be used in swarms, like in the movies. It will take autonomous A.I. based missiles, hypersonic and stealth as well. It's going to be a while before they can be mass produced economically enough to be a credible threat to aircraft carrier fleet.
    1
  52. ''In order for an enemy to hit a moving target over long distances like a ship, the weapon must have the ability to continuously track the target vessel. And in order to do that, the weapon must be continuously updated as to where the target vessel is.'' So far so good. ''The Navy has both classified and unclassified means of interrupting the enemy's kill chain by destroying or otherwise neutralizing the command and control of the missiles, the ability to use radar, the ability to use satellites, and / or the ability to communicate with the missile in flight.'' Yes, USN does, and so would the opponent; it works both ways. Fortunately, for the time being, both Russia and China are far behind U.S. But U.S. shouldn't take it for granted forever.
    1
  53.  @icecold9511  ''The Ford also now mounts a laser weapon. You'll need a lot to get past that.'' How would the laser track the enemy missile approaching?
    1
  54.  @icecold9511  ''Radar and IR. And the sensors of other ships.'' So it wouldn't work on missiles stealth against both radar, and IR? Especially hypersonic stealth cruise smart missiles?
    1
  55.  @icecold9511  ''First, only the US currently has any stealth missiles.'' You mean, no country currently has stealth missile, including U.S.? ''And the very nature of hypersonic missiles creates intense heat. The aerodynamics of hypersonic are at odds with stealth. Hypersonic is not some pixie dust magic weapon.'' It's about to change due to very recent breakthrough. You can google, hahn jae won, stealth coating, or jae won hahn, stealth, and look for Yonsei or nature article. ROK military channels confirmed ROK AF is going to be applying the stealth coating to hycore, hypersonic, stealth, cruise, smart missile. It will be stealth against radar, infrared, and will feature active camo, blending with the ambient visual background. ''It is loud and proud.'' Anything above Mach will be LOUD. ROK recently advanced ramjet/scramjet engine technology even above the Russian Zircon. The ability to turn on/off the engine, on demand, in real time, after the engine has been ignited, in mid flight. This way it can extend the range as much as 400% of Zircon. The hycore missile could reach a speed, so that by the time it enters the enemy AD zone, it would be slightly below Mach, still very fast, and stealth against radar, infrared, and visual detection, as well. ROK military channel also confirmed ROK had developed sonar based radar jamming technology. All it said was it tested successfully against all radars, including the AESA radar on F-35. ROK had to get permission from Lockheed Martin to test it. No know countermeasures worked against it. But so far I couldn't find any patents, or even the name of the inventor. I think ROK wants to keep this as the top secret, not to be shared with anyone. All I know is that after the announcement of this radar jamming technology, soon Saudis, and Egypt made a formal tender, and UAE, Poland, and UK want to be partners of KF-21. LM wanted co-production deal but ROK refused. I will try to find out more about this jamming technology. So far it only works point to point, one fighter jet against another fighter jet. ROK wants to advance it so that it would work point to multi-point, or even an entire network.
    1
  56.  @Battleneter  ''The fact China is building new carries is all we need to know, if carries were completely obsolete there is no way they would be doing it.'' PRC aircraft carriers are a joke. It's more of PR stunt, and make work project for the domestic economy than serious tools of war.
    1
  57.  @irrelevantfish1978  ''China's much larger population and much, much greater manufacturing capacity make it far more capable of quantity than we are.'' Automation can be a great equalizer: ROK is building an autonomous factory city to build KF-21s, 8 times faster assembly than the traditional method. ROK wants to be able to build up to 120 KF-21s per year.
    1
  58.  @UnknownUser-rb9pd  ''I also suspect that by then, if automation does accelerate, that China will have massive social upheaval, given how much of their population is employed in manufacturing. Whether this will be good or bad ....'' Check out their ghost cities, the piggybank of PRC middle class. ROK expects PRC to implode along with DPRK around 2050.
    1
  59.  @arthas640  '' that's assuming your enemy has anti ship missiles superior to your defenses, and assuming you bring your carriers within range.'' What about hypersonic, stealth, cruise missile, combined with sonar based anti-radar jamming technology that can make the fleet's radar useless? What if the enemy deploys massive fleet of mini-nuclear subs that are manned by A.I. robots, such as pibot? In the likely path of the carrier fleet, and let them 'hibernate' there till needed, armed with supertorpedos? ''Current projects estimate soon the cost of shooting down missiles will be cut to a fraction soon once the laser defense systems are fully developed, which is a reason for larger power output for many new vehicles and ships.'' How would those lasers track the enemy missiles?
    1
  60.  @Taskandpurpose  ''very true, its easy to take the wrong lessons from observing that conflict. I understand where they are coming from saying a more decentralized spread out navy could make sense but I dont think thats the strategy the navy is going for with the "kill web" doctrine they have'' What's optimal for a typical 3rd world banana republic vs. what's optimal for an existing superpower to maintain the lead, vs. what's optimal for up and coming contenders are not the same. Unfortunately, most nations buy stuff just because that's what the superpower uses, not realizing it's not optimal for their needs. As for USN, I do agree with their present policy, but not the implementation. As for U.S. military overall, they need to downsize USMC badly, and get rid of airborne for U.S. Army, expand the SLBMs, but downsize the Carrier force gradually, and merge USAF, with USSF, and create suborbital fighter force to defend and dominate the space. Lose GPS, it's really game over as a super power. As for grand strategy, U.S. needs to spend more on R&D, less on foreign ventures/money pits. Who cares if U.S. has all these oversea bases, if the enemy controls the space, and denies GPS to U.S. millitary?
    1
  61.  @irrelevantfish1978  ''Yes, automation can do amazing things, but only if you spend years building it, and there is every indication that we-the-impossible-to-underestimate American people will be unwilling to do so until it's too late.'' It's not too late yet. But U.S. will have to disengage in playing superhero for a while, spend on R&D at home. Another reason may be that both MIC, and locals want jobs immediately right now regardless of the sustainable productivity for the future. FASS(Fuselage Automated Splice System) is the backbone of the ROK autonomous factory city for building for KF-21. Assemble jets 8 times faster than the traditional method with far higher QA no less. Lockheed Martin engineers were impressed as well. ROK had to show it to them since ROK is in partnership with LM for FA-50. I don't worry about PRC too much, really a paper tiger about to implode around 2050.
    1
  62.  @jamesc8709  ''The planes are the thing China is scared of.'' PLA is greatly over-rated. Their planes' downtime could be as high as 90%! The Downtime Champ of the World! Another is their 'ghost cities', the piggy bank of PRC middle class. Toss a few missiles/bombs there, the real estate prices would collapse, collapsing the entire PRC economy, with very little collateral damages. No war crime; no body lives there.
    1
  63.  @wesleyfravel5149 '' Missile guidance and control is a lot more imprecise and vulnerable than a pilot with a plane doing the same.'' F-35 has been notoriously unreliable; UK RAF, Canadian AF, Aussies are not happy with F-35. Also, missiles don't suffer from the pilot bottlenecks. Even though A.I. Pilot robots, such as pibots will eventually alleviate the problem.
    1
  64.  @CadetTommy2145  ''He makes exactly the same argument for tanks -especially since everyone claims “the tank is dead.”. He's all right, but is over-rated. He tends to think 'tactically' from the crew point of view, than the operational use of the tank, from operational/strategic commanders' point of view. ''“ask not what the enemy can do to the tank; ask what the tank can do to the enemy” Similar in vain to ''Make the enemy die for his country, than dying for your country'', typical military macho talk.
    1
  65.  @PhaseCannon  '' I wonder, when a new method of tracking is utilized, how long does it take the world to invent a way to fool it?'' It's not just when, but who as well.
    1
  66.  @bluemarlin8138  ''China is also building carriers. If they believed the BS they pay you to spew about carriers being obsolete, then it wouldn’t make much sense to be building their own, now would it?'' PRC carriers are a joke; basically PR stunt, make work project for the economy, just like their ghost cities.
    1
  67.  @ronjon7942  ''Any protracted conflict w China is gonna cost a lot more than that, in lives and dollars. After China takes out LA, Chicago, and/or New York, losing a carrier won’t mean much outside of the serious loss of military capability.'' Before PRC can take out LAX, Chicago, and NYC, U.S. will take out all the ghost cities in PRC; the piggy bank for PRC middles class. PRC will implode, due to hyperinflation, and/or refusal to bail out the middle class.
    1
  68.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''and there are counter measures to jamming. The patriot missile system can lock on to the jamming signal. Jamming still requires a signal to jam. '' I know there are countermeasures to normal jamming, but not sonar based jamming. ''And I doubt what you mention is anywhere effective as you say it is.'' It has been tested on all radars in ROK military inventory, including AESA radar on F-35. "sonar based anti-radar jamming technology" I googled that and found zero results that actually talk about sonar based anti-radar jamming.'' I couldn't find it, either in English; I found it on ROK military channel, but you have to understand Korean. YT translation is horrible. ''So, I find what you say very dubious.'' You have the right to question, I would myself if I were you, but I've found ROK military channel very reliable and solid, they had broken the news that Saudis and UAE are committed to buy KF-21, several years ago, before the news became available in English this year. ''Let's say this is something that nations are working on. It is not out yet, ...'' It is out, already installed and tested on KF-21.
    1
  69.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  ''Hypersonic missiles produced by Russia US system can counter them.'' Zircon hasn't been countered yet. ''And with Energy weapons taking down drones and some are being developed for anti missile a anti ship guided missile like the one China been working on has good chance of getting countered.'' PRC claim is always suspect. Their ASMs have been tested for the range, on land, on fixed platform, by running the engine, and projecting. ''People saw hypersonic missile as one all it is just faster missile.'' Zircon is a lot faster than Patriot, more than twice the speed of Patriot, and at hypersonic stage, it develops plasma stealth in front of the missile, unable to be tracked by radar. Patriot cannot track Zircon at hypersonic velocity.
    1
  70.  @aaronleverton4221  No longer a Star Wars fan, too PC nowadays.
    1
  71.  @aaronleverton4221  I told you I am not interested in T-14, and Star Wars stuff nowadays.
    1
  72.  @Taskandpurpose  He's generally more tactically oriented. Sometimes he confuses what is optimal tactically for a small unit, one individual SPG, strictly from end user point of view, instead of looking at strategic, logistical point of view. Better to have enough SPGs with some poor ergonomics for the crew, than not enough perfectly designed SPG for the crew. Sometimes, you can't have enough of good ones to win the war, but can have enough of bad ones to win the war. But then other times he gets it. Just look at German tanks vs. the Soviet tanks. Of course, the German tanks were the more ergonomic, especially the optics, but they didn't have enough of them. The Soviets had more than enough of the ergonomically inferior tanks. His criticism of Tank destroyers was invalid. He claims TDs had been failures, because if they had been successful, then how come no one used it after WW2. So by his reason, turbo prop planes were failures as well, since they were largely displaced by jet, by the beginning of the Cold War. Btw. TDs had been kept in service by ROC/Taiwan long after WW2. By his reason, paratroopers were not failures since they were/are still used after WW2. Not according to Douglas Macgregor, U.S. Army would be better off without the Airborne, and I agree. BTW. Hahn Jae Won is the name of the ROK scientist who had recently came up with the breakthrough stealth coating, both radar, and infrared, and radar lock resistant. He has been working on them for several years.
    1
  73.  @aaronleverton4221  Sorry, Star Wars, kid, I'm too old for you.
    1
  74. @hieveryone2003 Only when accompanied by massive number of subs.
    1
  75.  @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas  '' and for it be hypersonic missile it has to cruse at that speed. So you don't know what you are talking about.'' - @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas No, for any missile to be hypersonic, it doesn't have to cruise at that speed. It only merely needs to be capable of cruising at that speed on demand. It can go subsonic for any length of time, but to go hypersonic at the later stage till impact. ''And for that large of ICBM to be hypersonic also... would require it to grow in size to be able to store all the fuel it would need to go hypersonic. I wasn't going against you, just pointing out how clueless they are.'' - @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas ''And no MRIVS are not hypersonic either. You really don't know what in hell you are talking about.'' - @DubhghlasMacDubhghlas ICBM/MRIVs are hypersonic, above Mach 5, didn't you know that?
    1
  76.  @aaronleverton4221  ''Yeah, you keep spamming that "sonar-based, anti-radar jamming technology" and lasers as if they are already deployed in the field and I'm the Star Wars kid?'' Ok, finally you show me you're interested, why didn't you say so in the first place? ''I rely purely on open-source and historical data, not speculative fiction, but, hey, at some point in this "discussion", you'll have something of substance to say.'' I rely on ROK military channels in a lot of technology, international military deals, because I found them to be far more reliable than any other sources, including this channel. But for some reason, whenever I post a link, they keep getting deleted, so you're going to have to google yourself. Unfortunately, for you, to understand, ROK military channels, you have to understand Korean, yt translation is worthless. There's no English source on sonar based anti-radar jamming technology right now; it's a breakthrough technology, very recent, just a few months old confirmed in ROK military channel. VLT, or virtual laser turret is to be mass deployed by 2035 on KF-21, by then, the laser will be far more powerful than now, and will be able to 'slice and dice' at close dog fight range. Again, no English source at present. But there are other areas of stealth coating technology where the international patents have been filed fairly recently, you can google yourself, and see for yourself how credible they are, in English. Just google, jae won hahn, stealth He's the scientist who has come up with, very recently, to be adopted by ROK AF, for stealth coating on KF-21 to be mass produced using FASS, again, world exclusive mass production technology for assembling fighter jets; 8 times faster than the traditional methods. FASS (Fuselage Automated Splice System), look for The Korea times article. This stealth coating is far superior to the stealth coating on F-35, both performance, and durability. You see, every time F-35 hits Mach, it has to be inspected, and the coating reapplied, very expensive and time consuming, good for Lockheed Martin, bad for U.S. military, and the tax payers. Canadian AF are not happy; Canada gets cold and cold air are dense, increasing the friction, on the air frame; F-35s can't even maintain the stealth sub Mach. The stealth coatings to be applied at KF-21 are one time application, good for the lifetime of the frame. Initially it was slightly inferior to the stealth coating on F-35, but after steady increase in performance, now it equals the performance against radar, and expected to exceed even F-22 eventually. Operating cost of KF-21 can be as low as 10% of F-35, depending on the Mach use, and the distance to the nearest authorized U.S. service center. But there are more. KF-21 stealth coating is also stealth against infrared sensors. Yes, engine provides heat, but there are ways to decrease the heat signature from the engine, or even turn off the engine temporarily, and glide. It also makes KF-21 'slippery', making the plane far more resistant against 'radar-lock', making the enemy's VBR radar guided missiles basically useless. Other application includes active stealth camo that can be used on MBTs, even infantry uniforms. As for sonar based anti-radar jamming technology, I couldn't find any source in English, it is so new, and considered top classified. I only found out because ROK wanted to test it against AESA radar on F-35 to see whether it would disable the AESA radar on F-35, and ROK had to get permission from Lockheed Martin to perform the test. So ROK military channel got it without violating the law. There are no electronic counter measures against Sonar. Also, the AESA radar on KF-21 is far more reliable on hard use than the AESA radar on F-35, due to it being vibration resistant, and high heat stable, and far more survivable, due to modular construction, 70% of its capacity will work even when some of its components get damaged; AESA radar on F-35 will quit cold turkey, when just one component gets broken. But the game changer is its ability to focus on an image on the screen, and magnify it 20 fold, on demand, in real time, it can be even preprogrammed to auto focus on any image during patrol/recon mode. This way, if it sees an image that could be either a bird, a debris, or stealth plane, it can focus, and magnify 20 fold, to determine its nature. ROK had it tested by IDF, which was so impressed, that offered a co-production deal, but ROK refused, and offered the co-production deal with Leonardo of Italy. I think they want to sell them to ME, and Africa, to make them far less vulnerable to SEAD by 5th gen fighter jets. You can google leonardo of italy, hanwha. As for the credibility of ROK military channel, they had predicted Poland, K2 MBT deal, 2 to 3 years before being confirmed in any English source. Also, Saudis, UAE, and Egypt are officially making offers to buy KF-21s, very recently. MBS toured ROK defense research center last year, picked their brain, and was so eager to sign the deal, but had to wait till the commencement of mass production. Just google, Saudis, KF-21, UAE, KF-21, and Egypt, KF-21, all three very recent.
    1
  77.  @dqdq4083  ''not necessarily, I think we all know that war isn't what it used to be. Russia and China are a little bigger than Iraq'' He's just swinging his eggroll, needs to grow up.
    1
  78.  @elswagmaster6992  Is F-35 working? All potential weapons need to be tested under field condition for enough period of time.
    1
  79.  @elswagmaster6992  ''what's that got to do with anything?'' All weapons systems need to be tested on field conditions, not just in labs. Just look at PRC fighter jets, with up to 90% downtime due to poor quality engine, and poor design choice for J20. ''..and yeah the F-35 works, there are hundreds.'' Considering how much money has been spent, and how many years, and F-35 did not come even close to meeting the original goals, and how many F-35s have crash landed, to this day, they are failures, plus they still have not so corrected those deficiencies.
    1
  80.  @elswagmaster6992  '' well, they're combat capable stealth multirole fighters, there's just under 1000 of them, either fielded by the United States..'' Yes, the JSF! The concept was attractive, common platform, economy of scale, but too bad, the needs of USAF, USN, and USMC were too different from each other. ''..and sold in abundance around the world to America's allies.'' ... and do you realize many of those allies are not happy with F-35? ''The current loss ratio of the delivered platforms is less than 1%, ...'' The documented current loss ratio doesn't tell the whole story. Whenever you have a documented complete loss, you can assume it didn't happen in vacuum, but there had been 'shut downs' of many other F-35s before, for 'emergency maintenance', and most certainly after the documented loss. This reduces the potential available sortie rate for the squadrons. In war times, under hard use, this could easily result in the loss of air superiority, a No-NO! Just look at PRC; they, too, have had documented losses before, and still now. Wh'at would be percentage rate of loss, based on documented loss rate, not that bad. Probably not that much different from F-35s. Of course, PLA has been caught trying to hide an actual loss, but got caught by their own public, at least once. So their real loss rate could be quite higher than the documented loss rate. What about the downtime for their jets? I've read it's as high as 90%! Another word, up to 90% of their jets could be unavailable on demand, in real time. This is unacceptable in war times. (But Great for USAF/USN/USMC!), but is not shown by the documented loss rate. Similar for USAF/USN/USMC, they all tried to hide the real loss unless they knew they would get caught. The same with some of U.S. allies, such as Canada, for PR reasons. Canadian AF had one of their F-35s crash landed very recently, but I couldn't find any reference to it in English. I heard about it from ROK military channels, about Canadian AF VIPs visiting ROK to attend KF-21 demonstration/testing flights, and inquiring about purchasing, that they were not happy about their brand new F-35 crash landing, and their pilot getting blamed, but Treadu wants a good PR with U.S. ''over half of those being the much less common VTOL F-35B.'' Yes, it was misbegotten; F-35B should not have existed. ''Not meeting original goals doesn't make a project a failure,....'' .... then does it make a success? ''it isn't like they don't function or exist.'' If F-35s had functioned to the satisfaction of U.S. military, when why had Charles Brown gone out of way to claim F-35 is not suitable for the needs of U.S. military? You can google, ''The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure''. ''Your criteria for failure being that it cost a lot of money, didn't meet original goals, and some were lost in accidents, applies to just about every fighter out there. If a B-2 were to crash tomorrow would that make the B-2's a failure?'' It's not just my criteria, but the criteria set by Charles Brown. the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, ex-Chief of Staff of USAF. Can you name some fighter jets that cost a lot of money, did not meet the original goals that were/are considered success? ''Of course not.'' Are you saying F-35 is a success? ''Lemme ask though because you got me confused on the context of this, why are you rambling on about the F-35.'' Just because a weapons system shows promise on paper, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a success in the field, under hard use; I was using F-35 as the most recent and famous example, since there have been so many positive expectations of F-35s.
    1
  81.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Oh we also have you bashing the F-35 because it crashed a few times even though it is statistically one of the safest planes if you look at its flight time....'' Can you show me the source? ''The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure'' ''..and say stuff like the F-35 is an absolute failure that failed at all it’s goals.'' Did I say that F-35 was an absolute failure that failed at all its goals?
    1
  82.  @kylezdancewicz7346  '' “cannot track hypersonic missiles due to a plasma stealth coat being developed in front of the missiles” you said nothing about metamaterial science here just state this as fact.'' ....then you hadn't read my all of my comments; you're quoting selectively.
    1
  83.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''also plasma stealth has to do with plasma forming at hypersonic speeds not meta materials'' Dude, I already know that. Just google, 'jae won hahn, stealth'.
    1
  84.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''“does the F-35 even work” “The F-35 doesn’t come close to meeting it’s original goals” you are literally calling it a useless failure. I just love your hypocrisy where you tell me I need sources then make claims with no sources in the same breath.'' I already did. Google, 'The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure'.
    1
  85.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''29 F-35 have crash and the F-35s have cumulative flight hour of 721,000 hours so about 25000 flight hours per crash. The average flight hours for a crash is 15000, make this plane insanely reliable.'' Can you show me the link so that I can examine other planes as well? Also, does this account for how many total F-35s vs how many F-35s crashed, compared to how many other planes crashed out of how many total other planes? And, in terms of operating cost of F-35 vs other planes, is this cost per hour of F-35 vs. other planes justified? If so, then how do you account for USAF ending the F-35 for future foundation of USAF?
    1
  86.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Ah yes it’s fails at being a low end jet, of course as they said they made it do too much for it to be cheap, they didn’t say the plane sucks and is a absolute failure, ...'' I didn't say it was an absolute failure; why are you trying to put words into my mouth I had never said? ''you said they said that, they just say it doesn’t work as a low end fighter.'' I did not say that; why are you lying? ''They didn’t say it was a bad plane they just said it wasn’t the plane they were trying to make as it was higher maintenance, tech, and costly the what they wanted, ....'' Another word, it wasn't the plane they had had in mind: Failure. ''by the way these statements were 2 years ago and the amount of F-35s in service have nearly doubled since then.'' About 700 F-35s by 2021, 975+ by 2023, not even 50%; why are you lying? ''Also I see you completely ignored me giving you empirical data on how reliable the F-35 is, Also I have and it over 5 so you don’t need to quote the comment your responding to unless you feel it is absolutely needed.'' I had asked for the source/link, and you refuse to provide: What are you hiding?
    1
  87.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Also the Us plans to still buy more despite its flaws, they want to get a fleet of a bit under 2000 F-35.'' ''The F-35 is so expensive, the Air Force may have to trim orders for the aircraft by a third if it can't get maintenance costs down.''
    1
  88.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Also yet again I have a memory so you don’t need to bother quoting the comment your responding to.'' I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding.
    1
  89.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''The operating cost per flight hour of the F-35 is about double the F-16...''' So far so good. ''..but this goes not only into its reliability....'' It has little to do with reliability, but fat profit margin for Lockheed Martin ''... but also it’s stealth, .....'' yes, do you know how that operating cost goes into stealth? ''...advanced computing and EW capabilities, you get it and I would say that is quite good for how advanced it is.'' Not really, considering how buggy its software is. Also, not the best QA for how all are supposed to be work together in sync. Why F-35 has high downtime rate, considering how much it cost, and how long it has taken to develop.
    1
  90.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''I can get that but I am not quoting your comments and you can quickly understand what I am responding too so unless it is a pretty old comment or you are using it for an argument you don’t need to quote.'' You're free to quote me; less confusing context.
    1
  91.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''I sadly can’t find anything about how the maintenance cost is divided, maybe you can have some better luck, because extremely specific information on advanced jets are hard to come by...'' Do you know why it is more expensive to maintain than others? 'Questions About Costs, Force Mix Could Spell Trouble for F-35A' Based on what I've found out from ROK military channels, basically 3 reasons why F-35 operating cost is so high. 1. Single engine, asked to do much, reduced durability and reliability, with more maintenance needed as a result. 2. Buggy software, and inferior QA than ROK AF. '''29 F-35 have crash and the F-35s have cumulative flight hour of 721,000 hours so about 25000 flight hours per crash. The average flight hours for a crash is 15000, make this plane insanely reliable.'' 'South Korea’s FA-50 Aircraft Achieves Remarkable 100,000 Accident-Free Flight Hours Milestone' 3. Fragile stealth coating: F-35 needs inspection every time F-35 hits Mach, and reapplication of the coating, cold weather making it even worse; why Canadian AF are not happy with F-35, and instead looking at KF-21. KF-21 stealth coating is metamaterial based permanent one time application during assembly. ''Bugs can be fixed and it’s Ew and computational abilities is still quite impressive.'' ...but it hasn't been fixed yet, and unlikely to change since USAF QA technology is no longer the state of art. Still ahead of PRC, but PRC has downtime of up to 90%, while F-35A is only 25 to 35 to 50%. 25% being ROK AF.
    1
  92.  @kylezdancewicz7346  ''Advancements take time and need to be incremented, .....'' I agree, but the implementation of aforementioned idea hasn't been smooth with F-35, with too much changes from the original concept in favor of passing fads. KF-21 has been done the way F-35 should have been done. ''..this was a very advanced plane when it was designed and was bound for bugs and problems.'' Too much introduction of unproven technology, with not enough QA. ''It’s still an advanced and cutting edge plane now, ....'' Not really; its stealth technology is about to become obsolete in favor of metamaterial based stealth technology of ROK. Its AESA radar has already been surpassed by the AESA radar to be implemented for KF-21, and FA-50 later versions; even IAI was impressed with the ROK AESA radars to the point they had offered software partnership with ROK, which declined in favor of Leonardo. ROK KF-21 AESA radar has been built with robust modularity, built in redundancy, far more than the AESA radar on F-35. It's designed to be far more vibration/shock, and temperature/temp change resistant than F-35 AESA radar. It is designed to retain about 80% capability even when some of the components malfunction. F-35 AESA radar shuts down 100% when just one component fails, and it is already far more likely to fail than KF-21 AESA radar. Not only it's about 20% more capable than F-35 AESA radar, but also it has a triumph card: The ability to focus on a dot on the screen and magnify it 20 fold, to discern whether it's a bird, or a stealth plane, in real time, on demand, can be even preprogrammed to activate automatically on its own on dots that have not been identified. It also has an ability to launch a2a missile as soon as the enemy fighter enters its radar coverage automatically, when preprogrammed in advance, depending on the mission, where the chance for the collateral damage is unlikely. Its stealth coating also includes not just against radar, but also IRST, and radar lock resistant, so even if the enemy fighter sees it first, and applies radar lock, it is likely to be slip. 'jae won hahn, stealth' KF-21 will eventually come with built-in autonomous option as well: Far less chance of 'pilot bottleneck'. ''...and is still a quite functional and effective plane.'' Just not the goal intended: JSF not. More of a SEAD specialist.
    1
  93.  @Waynefitzpatrick2032  PLN aircraft carriers are jokes.
    1
  94.  @altarancho  ''we don’t like the term'' Get over it; it's the term used in RN. Anyway, do you know the reason why USN hasn't adopted the TT conrfiguration?
    1
  95.  @andrewmcalister3462  ''Well, you lose some deck space with twin towers.'' True, but also has optimal placement for navigation, surveillance radar operation and optimal for air traffic operation, and provides extra redundancy, in case, one get disabled. Redundancy is more important especially if you have only one aircraft carrier. ''However, it is worth noting the QE class is powered by 2 gas turbines, and the RN found that it could save internal space by routing the exhaust trunks to 2 islands separately, than through a single island. Both the US and French carriers are nuclear powered, so don't have the same exhaust issue.'' I see; I realize now I was looking at previous French aircraft carrier they were going to build, PA2, instead of PA-NG. The one ROKN is going to build has not been finalized yet, other than twin tower arrangement. Some say it will be bigger than QE, but based on K22 reactors of the PA-NG, which will use low civilian grade uranium, not to run afoul of any nuclear treaties, but also combined with ROK mini-modular nuclear reactor design as well. Well, USN has more than enough aircraft carriers: not as much need for redundancy.
    1