amazing to have a real Royal Navy back again, cant wait to welcome these ships home to Pompey

@remembermemesthinkofmemes2650

7 жыл бұрын

Yea they will make us even more stronger.

@jackleslie1576

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe one day well rule the waves again! :)

@MrKryptoGaming

7 жыл бұрын

thats why they are called carriers strike groups they have 6+ destroyers protecting them to shoot down the missiles

@taoliu3949

7 жыл бұрын

Missiles with the capability to continuously track the target location, adjust trajectory, get past carrier defence systems, and have the precision to hit and power to destroy Ford Carriers with one hit will cost a lot more than $100 million dollars, it's pretty much the size of a medium sized aircraft. Oh, that's assuming you can find the carrier to begin with. That being said, the DF-21D has a variance of 200-300 meters, so even if the missile could make it through the missile defense, good luck landing on the actual carrier. And the PLA does not have that many DF-21D to begin with, it's entire stockpile is in the teens. So even if the PLA has the capability to build missiles that can hit and sink a US carrier, they can barely afford to build those missiles anyways. Not to mention, firing ballistic missiles, even if non-nuclear can easily be mistaken as a nuclear weapon. Good luck trying to keep the war non-nuclear.

@gopr3117

7 жыл бұрын

These carriers are a terrible mistake and the MOD knows it. Effectively reduces the Navy's capabilities by half. We don't have enough ships to escort them and maintain our everyday naval activities. The Navy's budget has been blown on two monsters that are too big and too expensive when it needed to be spent on expanding and sorting out our frigate and destroyer fleet. The Navy is useless atm. This was a vanity project and nothing else. Of course, the fact the shipyard that built these is near Gordon Brown's constituency has nothing to do with it I'm sure!!

hope to see the queen Elizabeth sailing along side the Gerald R Ford some day.

@jamalihamilton7866

8 жыл бұрын

***** DAMN RIGHT!!!😤

@TPerm-hj4sf

8 жыл бұрын

+Vineeth Reddy yes they can, there are secret holes and pipes.

@dantaylor7344

7 жыл бұрын

In a wrecking in India yard yes.

@coreywilliams1454

7 жыл бұрын

No, all British ships are under contract to be scrapped in Turkey.

@jeffreymuu5451

7 жыл бұрын

jamali hamilton not with its refueling

they are some sexy air craft carriers

@terrygorman588

7 жыл бұрын

Pity the UK don`t have any aircraft to put on our new aircraft carriers, nor defence missiles to put on the ships which will be expected to escort and protect them!

@Evan-ef7tk

7 жыл бұрын

We have defence missiles...

@asieriths2850

7 жыл бұрын

He is right. We are going to retire the warships that accompany them and our sea to sea missile system is on its last legs - we are running out of parts, so they're going to retire that as well. We don;t have a proper replacement for either of them, so the carriers will be useless.

@timw5108

7 жыл бұрын

Then something should be done. Make a deal with the Americans to detach an appropriate number of US escorts with US/British crews for temporary service with the RN while the British build new destroyer escorts. For the express purpose of getting that new carrier, the first full-size RN carrier since '78, to sea, rebuilding the experience level the RN needs. It could be done if there was any will to do it. Either that or Britain should convert to a navy dominated by submarines. 2 or 3 destroyers, 10, 20 missile boats, & everything else nuclear & non-nuclear subs.

@ZolaMagic25

7 жыл бұрын

Tim W Perhaps but it's hardly a pressing matter when you consider our adversaries!

Please do not put the word "The" in front of HMS

@earthwormjah

7 жыл бұрын

The HMS

@firepower7017

7 жыл бұрын

earthwormjah your basically saying The Her Majesty's Ship it makes not fucking sense not being offensive ok let me repeat it NOT BEING OFFENSIVE AT ALL OK SO DON'T CONCLUDE THAT I WAS BEING OFFENSIVE OR THAT THEY CAPS MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT BUT I AIN'T TRUST ME I AIN'T BEING OFFENSIVE

@earthwormjah

7 жыл бұрын

+Fire Power701 Fuck yeah brah, Fuckin A.

@maxjones503

7 жыл бұрын

The Her Majesty

@ZolaMagic25

7 жыл бұрын

The fuck

For all Americans boasng 1.We can afford two of these for 4bn less than your carriers 2.They are the largest non-US ships ever built 3.STOVL is good enough for the rest world and we invented your CATOBAR 4.Our Submarines,Frigates and Destroyers put yours to shame 5.We have our own oil production don't need Nuclear Power. Also some countries don't even let Nuclear Powered Ships in their waters inc Suez Canal. It's just not cost effective

@saihein3980

6 жыл бұрын

Vince Henderson 1. us have 10 cuz they can effort it 2. ok 3. No. 4. No American Destroyers and submrines are better. In both quality and quantity. 5. No, Nuclear power could last 20 years.

US-made F35? What are they talking about? Yea the US put the most money into it, but BAE Systems was also a huge part in the planes creation. It is essentially a UK-US made aircraft.

@oldgregg6915

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah it's Anglo American but this is CNN MERICA!

@azram63

7 жыл бұрын

It doesn't make a difference who made it, it's still a piece of shit!

@Andrew-is7rs

7 жыл бұрын

How do you know Azram? You flown one? You a radar operator? Are even a real person......? Lol Knob

@azram63

7 жыл бұрын

PAKI?! You are truly a moron! I am a native born US citizen of English and French descent and US Navy veteran, and YES I was a radar operator stationed aboard the USS Ingersoll DD-990!!! I believe in a strong defense. I do read however, and from what I have read, this aircraft which is designed to be a jack of all trades, has wound up being mediocre in performance as a result!

@unionvsleague6223

7 жыл бұрын

its essentially NATO not uk/us

I look forward to UK and US carriers working together.

@michaelbrant1668

3 жыл бұрын

Not going to happen, no interoptibilty thanks to the dickhead politicians in the UK.

We oftenly made bad jokes about you, we love to quarrel. But it the end it reinforce our friendship. We have a long history of war and hatred. But I am happy to see our countries are allies. And I hope it will be forever ! Love from France.

Funny thing about the American built F35B - the back end of it is built down the road from where I live - Lancashire, UK. Have we been merged into the United States? The 51st, perhaps? Will we have the Union flag as part of our statehood flag - like Hawaii, perhaps? Mm!

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

Ignorant comment. That is because the F35b was developed with Anglo-American input. Everyone is saying how the F-35 is American when a huge amount of the research, development and manufacturing is done in Britain. Don't be fooled; BAE Systems has its fingers in many pies and the main reason why the F-35b was adopted by the Royal Navy, was because it was a joint strike fighter / JSF venture. That is what the project is basically called, the Joint Strike Fighter gen-5 design for an aircraft carrier borne ship of the future. It isn't that we are being talked down to by the USA. If that were the case we'd have no Eurofighter Typhoons. Think about it. F35-b Lightning II JSF is the British variant of the aircraft, for our aircraft supercarriers HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, 72,500 tonnes each per ship, built in the British shipyards in compartments and blocks, towed together at Rosyth, and assembled piece by piece. We ought to have 4 of them not just 2 in my opinion. But there you go, the F35-b's have been expensive and overbudget in both the USA and the UK. Mainly the fault of the USA on that account, with money being shoveled into their production going god knows where for what reason. The British will be fine. Personally I think we should develop a naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon or a brand new aircraft. Just think about this, the F35-B is inspired and developed from, in large part (with its VTOL technology) the British invented Harrier and Sea Harrier jump jets. Contrary to disgraceful popular belief, the British *did* invent the Harriers, which are still used in the USA. The USA bought them off the UK and has many more of them, but that isn't the same as inventing them is it? Basically the F35b wouldn't exist without the Harrier. So the USA owes us one on that - even so, with Britain and British science and innovation still vital to the development of the F35b's. Look a little closer and what you are saying is paranoid.

@williamrance5086

7 жыл бұрын

I don't know for sure if you are calling me the paranoid one, my friend, but, if you are, it's far from the truth! I was being light-hearted with my comments. As regards all the information you have provided - I'm already aware of most of the facts you mention, but it may be of great interest to others sharing this link, so I see no harm done there. As regards the QE carriers and their proposed 50 year service life, there would seem little point in developing further manned maritime fighter aircraft when the future lies with the UAV's, VTOL's, STOL's, Helicopter hybrids and whatever follows. It does seem that the planners of the QE type carriers have been pretty canny combining an assault ship capability within its design. The lack of angled flight deck and catapult inclusion may be a blessing in disguise, saving space and expenditure on a redundant feature - who knows? Regarding the number of carriers we should have, I agree with you. Kindest regards, Bill.

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

William Rance I'm saying your comment is ignorant and that you are being paranoid to allude to some kind of ''51st state'' thing going on between Britain and the USA. It is in your very comment, just going off what you said ok? Anyhow, happily I notice you at least did some research and reading about the carriers for instance yourself. The 50 year lifespan is important. It shows how cost effective they'll be. Lighthearted is fine. ''but it may be of great interest to others sharing this link, so I see no harm done there'' Finally someone who is polite in response. ''As regards the QE carriers and their proposed 50 year service life, there would seem little point in developing further manned maritime fighter aircraft when the future lies with the UAV's, VTOL's, STOL's, Helicopter hybrids and whatever follows.'' Well, that has yet to be seen. Personally I think they'll always have manned fighters, and feel uncomfortable with an all unmanned air fleet. It'd be too much I think. Makes me feel uneasy. Humans should always be the majority operators. Of course, pilots operate the drones and stuff from bases far away, often around the world from their craft, but still. There could be a change in that department for all we know in the next decades and centuries, concerning the technology and so on. Besides which there is much more potential for the technology to progress again. ''It does seem that the planners of the QE type carriers have been pretty canny combining an assault ship capability within its design. The lack of angled flight deck and catapult inclusion may be a blessing in disguise, saving space and expenditure on a redundant feature - who knows? '' In any case, I'd say the modular spaces on the QE class supercarriers will be useful. They are purpose built to allow for replacements and changes over time, with modular components able to be ripped out from very spacious rooms without the need to interfere with the superstructure and mainframe of the naval architecture, just like a convenient sandbox for changing the components. We could see technology arise that we couldn't even have imagined all thanks to a single inventor, so such flexibility and preparedness is at least better than not having it, and potentially a very prudent design feature. In my opinion Great Britain should continue developing carrier technology, with Britain being very important in the story of the aircraft carrier since the first true forms. USA will obviously continue, and China and Russia will make their advances, as may also France, India and Brazil. But still, Britain should keep ahead of the curve technologically.

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

William Rance p.s - I was saying, now you've explained yourself it makes more sense. Its fine, you are just a bit ambiguous there in the original comment.

@williamrance5086

7 жыл бұрын

Ambiguous? Well, my wife has used up all the words ending in ...ing to describe me, so I'll pass this one on to her for inclusion within her little book of words to describe hubby. No harm done! Take care, Bill.

9 billion to build both ships? What a bargain. They should be build carriers for USA. It costs US taxpayers 10.4 to 14 billion to build one. Or the US military should consider building cheaper, stealthier, faster, smaller aircraft carriers in greater numbers. Giant aircraft carriers are starting to look like battleships of the past.

@MercuryModder

8 жыл бұрын

Was thinking the same thing, reminds me of the bizmark and tirpitz

@isunlloaoll

8 жыл бұрын

It also cost way too much to build even a corvette, whereas the Danish can build a large air defence frigate for almost half the cost. I honestly don't know where all that money went, but I hope not into politicians pockets or some fking arms dealers pockets...

@sanforce

8 жыл бұрын

The $10 billion is to develop a new class of carrier, subsequent carriers in the Ford class will be less expensive. Also, the US carriers are nuclear reactor powered, are much larger, and have a much larger air wing.

@1chish

7 жыл бұрын

+sanforce You might like to revisit your numbers mate. The Gerald R Ford cost $4.6 Bn for R & D. It then cost some $12.6 Bn to build. It owes the US Taxpayer £17 Bn and hasn't moved under its own power yet. And is just about using its EMALS to throw wheelbarrows into the James River. We have built two QE Class carriers for $10 Bn so we could have built three and had change for one Ford Class. The UK decided back in the '60s there is no strategic or tactical benefit to nuclear power for a surface ship. Its why we build excellent nuclear submarines. The extra costs do not deliver any substantial benefit. The US Congress did a survey in '98 of the difference in costs between a nuclear and conventional carrier. And in '97 US Dollars it worked out that a Nuclear carrier was $7.2 Bn more expensive over a 50 year life cycle. Or $10.8 Bn in 2016 Dollars. That is $216 Mn a year EXTRA. Its all here: www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf The QE Class is about 150 feet shorter overall and that is in the bow because it has a ramp not CATOBAR. We have also built in passive engineering for later fitment of CATOBAR in a mid life refit. Its deck area is actually wider for longer than the Ford Class and it has a daily sortie rate about 10% less than a Nimitz / Ford. Plus it is more than just a 'carrier of aircraft'. It can be used for a variety of airborne operations and could embark all Navy, RAF and Army aircraft. This is a good discussion from a US based Journal: foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834 And here: foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-carrier-gap-crisis-highlights-a-need-for-sma-1740644946

@joeezetta2064

7 жыл бұрын

I look at wikipedia too. Numbers vary. 36 billion for total program costs does not include 10.4 to build each carrier. If you looked at the schedule for the USS Gerald Ford you would have noticed when it was going active. Post shakedown availability in 2017. Shock trials in 2019. Will deploy in 2021. No rush to deploy when there is 10 Nimitz class carriers active. It does not owe taxpayers anything. It's the European countries that can't protect themselves that owe the USS Gerald Ford.

Proud to be British, they are now the most powerful aircraft carriers ever built.

It's great to see the Royal Navy being brought back to a respectable state.

How are they supposed to fight ISIS if they are only CGI?

@MrMousTache-ws1ft

4 жыл бұрын

Bird Up their is only 1 able to sail safely but when u commented this they were only half ready

"Slightly smaller than the USS Nimitz"?? It will be much smaller. In length its more than 50 meters. They carry more than twice as many fighters.

@matthewkendall8592

7 жыл бұрын

Norwegian733 It's CNN what do you expect lol

@eraldorh

7 жыл бұрын

50 at full load vs 90 at full load, how is that more than twice as many? thats not even twice as many genius.

@Norwegian733

7 жыл бұрын

eraldorh It wont carry 50 aircrafts in a war operation anyway. It can pack 50, but that will create problems. Typical warload is said to be less than 30 F-35. And not 90 on the Nimitz either although it can pack that many. It usually carry max 75.

@eraldorh

7 жыл бұрын

Norwegian733 War load is not 30 thats just what they will have for reasons unspecified so dont act like you know more than whats been released. The capcity is 50 which means 50 could operate in war, they wouldnt say it can carry 50 if they couldnt opperate from the dam carrier its not a cargo ship. Honestly that was brain rot.

@Norwegian733

7 жыл бұрын

eraldorh Well, you may read this: "...the QE class will be able to accommodate up to 36 F-35s" + 4 other aircrafts. I dont care how many aircrafts it may pack in theory. www.newsdeskmedia.com/Images/Upload/PDFs/Global-Force-2013.pdf

Makes me proud to be British again. In service in 2020 (that seemed a long way ahead years ago, but now its only 3 years!)

Its Ironic because the Angled Deck Carrier was a British Invention and yet they didn't implement them. If the carriers are meant only for the F-35 and helicopters thats fine but what about carrying other planes in case the JSF becomes to expensive or unable to fulfill its role.

can't we all just get along?

@EvenWaysMusic

7 жыл бұрын

JOHNNY FUTS 😂

@jsjjsjshshjajjsjsjs9803

6 жыл бұрын

doczg88 humans are technically animals

@RealUlrichLeland

6 жыл бұрын

Even better, everyone just get along so we can all work together to build bloody huge ships, but just for the fun of it!

@yourearidiculouslunatic8435

5 жыл бұрын

CNN IS FULL OF SHIT

I see no smoke. Is it working?

@vulcangbr6064

7 жыл бұрын

Not as much as the Russian feet I hope...

@lorenalleyne7712

7 жыл бұрын

Le Bublerkin only old ships smock

@iT3K

7 жыл бұрын

+Loren Alleyne They will smoke some and it's just a simulation. Kinda of surprised they didn't go with Nuclear aircraft carriers.

@carjac820

7 жыл бұрын

Modern ships dont really smoke much compared to old ships.

@christopherberry9496

7 жыл бұрын

also, clearly its run out of oil. I dont see an oil slick in its wake. its ok i have a british car.

I saw the PoW getting built only 2 weeks ago when I was in MOD Caledonia, awesome sight gotta say!

nice ships awe full names,the royal navy has had fantastic names in the past

I was told that most of the officers on this ship are issued skis which allow them some play time in their off hours.

Idc what no one says Uk + usa are the fucking best!

@remembermemesthinkofmemes2650

7 жыл бұрын

Fuck yea !!!

@truthoverall3893

7 жыл бұрын

I'm American and I would say that YES, the USA and UK people are great!... Our governments however, are warmongering satan worshipers... sad to say

@matthewkendall8592

7 жыл бұрын

james hartley I feel sorry for Americans at the minute with Clinton and Trump

@explosiongames11

7 жыл бұрын

TruthOverAll the uk government might as well be angles with the new us government coming

@truthoverall3893

7 жыл бұрын

Explosion Games ... You have no clue what you are talking about. We the American people voted for a man that has vowed to stop the warmongering, coruption, world policing, propoganda, pay for play etc... And hopefully Brexit becomes fully realized, so that the UK can be a sovereign nation again.

Wow! We need some of these

I have to admit those are some nice looking cvs.

i dont understand why they werent just made nuclear powered like the astute class subs. Then you never need to refuel except in 10 year periods for new rods.

@TheBooban

7 жыл бұрын

and why they didnt use cats and traps. These carriers are a total bungled waste of money.

@eraldorh

7 жыл бұрын

TheBooban I believe they installed them. They should have just made a naval version of the typhoon and launched via catapault. Rather than wasting money on the f-35.

@TheBooban

7 жыл бұрын

eraldorh Why would they install them and not use them? They didn't install cats and traps. It was too expensive. The big ships aren't worth their size and money, only as good as US Marine assault ships.

@eraldorh

7 жыл бұрын

TheBooban I read that they either made it so it can be easily configured for the catapault system or that they were currently installing it. The fact it has a ski jump at the end indicates this is obviously on the cards. Lots of decisions being made and then unmade on these carriers. These are a hell of alot better than marine assault ships but no they are not worth the money, for the money paid for these 2 ships they should be nuclear powered.

@TheBooban

7 жыл бұрын

eraldorh It was supposed to be "easy" to install cats and traps, but then when they tried to change their minds and install it, found out it needed so many changes it was too expensive. So no, they are not installing it. Then then got a shock by how much more expensive the VTOL version of the F-35 is compared to the cats n traps version. I don't see how they are better than the marine version. The aircraft they will fly are exactly the same.

I tought the aircraft spelled like minecraf thats why i here

@joosunkmybattleship

7 жыл бұрын

xZombified Gx *I'm

Greatest Navy ever to exist the BRITISH and still is in terms of professionalism

yeah I work on the Gosport side in fort blockhouse the ship will pass about 50 foot from were I work.

F-35?! Gawd help them!

@AndrewSmall963

7 жыл бұрын

Carl Brutananadilewski Not a problem, the deck is more than long enough for operating a flight of Fairey Swordfish. (More likely attack helicopters but it would be great to see one of the surviving aircraft in the RN Historic Flight land on a carrier again.)

@ddha0000

6 жыл бұрын

yeah....but they will be stripped and upgraded with all new tech to make them better.

@mrridley8967

6 жыл бұрын

Carl Brutananadilewski what's wrong with the f-35 it's not like it's not finishe....oh wait

@Max-zq9bt

6 жыл бұрын

Could be worse mate 'cough cough' SU 35

Great ship but since Britains F-35's aren't ready yet, it's just a floating platform with no jets.

@JohnLee-kl4tc

8 жыл бұрын

They don't need F-35s. F-35 are only American made and can't be sold to foreign country's, plus it's a lot more then what China has.

@reelreeler8778

8 жыл бұрын

it looks like the aircraft carriers are just CGI images anyway

@e0o9kii

8 жыл бұрын

***** The F-22 can't be sold to other countries. The F-35 is being used by the US and countries like the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, Japan and other countries have ordered (and even received) some F-35s (see references below). ABC. (2014). Joint Strike Fighters: Australia's first F-35 jet takes inaugural flight in United States - Australia Broadcastong Co. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-01/australia's-first-joint-strike-fighter-makes-it-inaugural-flight/5781094 Lockheed Martin. (n.d.). Global Participation - Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from www.f35.com/global Beale, J. (2012). UK receives first F-35 stealth fighter jet from US - British Broadcastong Co. Receieved from www.bbc.com/news/uk-18919388

@1chish

7 жыл бұрын

+reelreeler Hardly mate. One has been launched and is in final fit out due to sail later this Summer and the second is structurally complete in Dry Dock. Have a read: www.theengineer.co.uk/final-preparations-for-carrier-crew-handover/

@1chish

7 жыл бұрын

+JTN The ships aren't complete yet so where would they F35s land? But when they are complete the F35s will be ready...

I'm from Portsmouth and my dad is in the navy, he's going to be working on it when it's done

Being put together in my home town. Such a nice sight, Rule Britannia.

cause we need to spend money on this right?.....

@ryanfinn5544

8 жыл бұрын

+Vineeth Reddy ?

@e0o9kii

8 жыл бұрын

Well countries like the US, France, Spain, Italy, Australia and Brazil all have carriers while China, India and Russia are building up their carrier forces so yeah, Britain needs carriers to keep up.

@theredshirtbrowncoat423

8 жыл бұрын

+Vineeth Reddy let it go!

@ryanfinn5544

8 жыл бұрын

+Fat Cat not wasting taxes

@ryanfinn5544

8 жыл бұрын

+JTN L 저스틴 no it doesn't at all safer if we're not a huge power, no reason for those countries to attack in the 21st century

Britain needs to reclaim its empire!

@Litany_of_Fury

7 жыл бұрын

World has too many problems we don't wanna solve anymore.

@myweirdexperience9277

7 жыл бұрын

That would be politically impossible. Sorry.

@k1er4n544

7 жыл бұрын

Aaron Moffatt well the Spanish empire done a lot worse infact they killed millions of native Americans

@comradestalin7694

7 жыл бұрын

Aaron Moffatt u should do tht Your government is busy begging for free trade deals around the world.

@k1er4n544

7 жыл бұрын

MrRadical916 also what described sounds a lot like the usa

I've seen the queen Elizabeth sitting at rosyth in Fife, Scotland. it's some size of vessel right enough

Honestly USA is the best but give it to Britain, without them USA would cease to exist. Much love from across the pond.

in the age of spy satellites and tactical nukes, the last place you want to be in war time is on a big ass boat in the middle of the ocean... Naval power is obsolete

@rhubarbthesecond4222

8 жыл бұрын

"Naval power is obsolete" Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is?

@jakepv1

8 жыл бұрын

Salwan I stand corrected. It's still effective against third world countries... But, considering they are ramping up a war with Russia and China, they may as well just paint a giant bullseye on this aircraft carrier.

@jakepv1

8 жыл бұрын

Sending a fleet of ships against Russia or China is the equivalent rows of people with muskets standing in front of a Gatling gun.

@rhubarbthesecond4222

8 жыл бұрын

jakepv1 Nuclear missiles are a strategical weapon, they're not something you use against a single aircraft carrier. You use them against cities and major industrial centres. Alot of naval ships have the capacity to carry nuclear weapons as well. And there are ways to shoot down a nuclear missile. And nobody is ramping up a war against anybody, it's all proxy and economical.

@jensonkiin3678

7 жыл бұрын

Obviously you are someone with absolutely no appreciation/awareness of power projection, maritime security and long distance warfighting.

what a fantastic idea to make them so large that they are impossible to miss from the other side of the world

I just cant get over that efin ramp!

Look forward to seeing them BAE

These carriers will be a value addition to NATO .

Shame they will have the basket-case that is the F-35B operating from them.

it's good that they're so big they can accommodate all our of our carrier born aircra..................

@ThisisalGOOGLESCHANNEL

7 жыл бұрын

those things that we don't have

I'm curious why two separate islands? Obviously the forward island is the helm, but what would the aft island be used for?

@ScotsDestroyer

7 жыл бұрын

making tea

What a beautiful ship

kinda was expecting a much more massive aircraft carrier which has two flight decks and the control tower sitting the middle of it. XD

Beautiful ship(s) but need angle deck

36% of the F35 is British made, including the Rolls Royce engines

They'll actually be 70,600 tonnes. They underestimated their total displacement.

I knew about the "old france" lovers hopping to see the France on top of the World sometime soon, didn't know it was also a thing in britain. Seems like we love to hate each other while making the exact same things, this is pretty funny to me btw now we also need a second carrier, thanks.. (and please don't make a third one or it will never end !)

At 65K tons, they are about two-thirds the size of the US Nimitz class, of which the USN has ten, with two even larger Ford class building, of a planned class of seven. The QE's have a ski-jump rather than a catapult, and really require a STOVL aircraft such as the F-35B, which it is hoped will be fully operational in all roles by 2020. (At the moment only the CAS configuration with an earlier software block is.) This limits their "throw weight" very strongly. But they are very long-range long-endurance ships (typical of the RN) and their obvious use is to deter and if necessary repel Argentine attempts on the Falklands. Of course they might be used to support NATO operations, too, but in that case will need escort by AW and AS ships. I'm not sure the RN disposes of enough of these.

Nimitz isn't the largest. The Reagan is by tonnage, they will vary but at least one will be another 1000 tonnes heavier.

I lOVE BRITISH NAVY.

Damnnnnnn it's hugeeee !!! Lets kick some ass !!!

Cool, I live in Portsmouth. Guess I'll be in one of the first places an enemy of state bombs when they decide to attack, Pearl Harbour style.

Dream on brits. The f-35 will not be operational for many years yet. Should have kept the Harriers and not not scrapped them in 2010 after spending £580 million on the fleet for upgrades, major repairs and upgrades. The Harriers had a good 15 years life left in them. Harrier cost £30 million each, f-35 cost £170+ million each. Not really value for money in my opinion........

@EvenWaysMusic

7 жыл бұрын

swerve1960 You must be reading some extremely old sources... The F-35 is now cheaper than any 4th gen fighter. The F-35A now costs $85 million and the F-35B costs less than $110 million now. The UK is to have 42 by 2022.

@swerve1960

7 жыл бұрын

Hi Josh. That's not true because the Harrier underwent a very comprehensive upgrade and modification programme from 2005 to 2010 at a cost of £580 million! The govt scrapped them to save money but then lent £8 billion to the Irish as part of the eu rescue package! Sad.

Nice, hope the EU dont try and nick them

Well, "massive" is a relative term. The USS Nimitz was built in the 1970's, is longer, faster, nuclear powered and holds way more aircraft and a crew of about 3200. So yeah, congrats.

We could not have gotten better allies than the British!

nimitz class can have more than 2000 on board, and displaces a lot more than these "slightly" smaller isnt exactly true

@Acrosstheorangeriver

7 жыл бұрын

I guess we can deal with this , its obviously been thought out , where as you have twice the crew to feed

Well the 1st one is just about ready, now they will see if it was the right decision to build these ships.

@rivco5008

7 жыл бұрын

Monster LMA I agree completely. The UK needs to control it's own waters, and the international approaches. Yes the empire is gone, but carriers have not become obsolete for Britain imo. You are right to point out the German tactics in WW2. My mom was from Southampton & they knew the Uboats were blowing away 100's of supply ships out in the Atlantic. Hardly anything getting through. She stopped getting enough to eat when she was 13, she talked to us years later how being hungry all the time was like a great weight she couldn't get rid of. She was not starving but they had the minimum, no more. I hope these new carriers work for Britain...

"They can sail 10,000 nautical miles without refueling." You mean they're running on diesel engines? All a sub has to do is take out the escort oil tanker for refueling and the carrier is screwed.

679 crew? that cant be right. Nimitz has over 5000 crew...

@immortallvulture

7 жыл бұрын

the carriers have a lot of automation and computer controlled systems to reduce crew size.

3-4 yakhont missiles and good buy.

seeing something like this is like seeing a zeppelin in 1900 for the very first time

These carrier's will be perfect for future operations. Many will say a waste of money, who will drive it ....or bad decision. ...Think how many drones/ manned aircraft it will carry into a conflict area. The kinda projection of power. A small nation like UK as to project this kinda power to be taken seriously. This with her subs and other vessels puts uk back on the map. But no doubt someone will say....cut back

MISTAKE- The F35 planes for this aren't made in USA but UK - that's the deal.

I get that this video is pretty old, but wouldn't the USS Gerald Ford already be under construction? It'll be completed at roughly the same time as the new elizabeth class carriers so why did they say the Nimitz is the biggest? I guess its the biggest at the time but idk bleugh

@andej1238

7 жыл бұрын

The QE is very big but the Nimitz is much bigger still.

they went all out on these 2 carriers, but imagine a fordclass carrier with only vtol

Wow, these Aircraft carriers have significantly lesser crewmen yet still 'slightly' smaller than the US Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier.

@siadwarsame2045

4 жыл бұрын

it's half the size of the NIMITZ class though.

Are they gona try Gallipoli for another time?

Massive? Not in the grand scheme of modern air craft carriers, but I am hopeful it will punch above it's weight!

@EvenWaysMusic

7 жыл бұрын

John Ossendorf They are the second biggest in existence after the US ones. So what do you mean "not in the grand scheme of modern aircraft carriers"? No one else has the tech to build bigger but the US and the UK itself.

They're beautiful. I'm glad the royal navy chose France to co design it. Can't wait to see the great european nations rules again !

@vincehenderson9309

7 жыл бұрын

It's a British Design. France only wanted to buy one and they've dropped out now

@siadwarsame2045

4 жыл бұрын

@@vincehenderson9309 no it's a French design. France and Uk were partners in the development of the vessel, but France left the project because they needed a COTOBAR carrier to be deployed alongside the CDG carrier. UK received technical and technological support from France though. but this a great news for the RN to finally field two great vessels.

Looked good until the F-35 boondoggle part.

Serious question. Why do they need 2 new (extremely expensive) aircraft carriers?

@mn5499

5 жыл бұрын

Having a strong navy gives you world leverage, everyone wants to trade with powers that have strong military they can also get you better trade deals particularly if countries want a defense pact. Apart from the leverage they give , progress, Lets not forget not looking after our military can do. If war dose comes Britain needs to be prepared.

I think they will be permanent sights on the Plymouth Docks, just like Ocean, Bulwark and Albion. A pity really, but i doubt there is enough money to sail them.

Let's test it on Kim ;)

really they made that just deal with it the bigger the better.

And we can't even afford the planes for it. Looks great but perhaps not fully thought through.

It's a shame the Navy can't recruit anyone to sail crew the damn things...

@vincehenderson9309

7 жыл бұрын

The first ship already has a crew

@mrwoo1

7 жыл бұрын

The Royal Navy has the highest retention problem of all the British armed forces. I'm will to bet my bottom dollar it will be under-manned.

@bitcrazy3746

5 жыл бұрын

That's cause its well known alot of gay people join the navy nothing against gay people but I wouldn't want to join either.

Wait, do those inclines at the ends help? I don't see any US ships with that.

@aaexo6468

8 жыл бұрын

Because the US use catapults which are extremely expensive

@1chish

7 жыл бұрын

Yes they allow a higher take off weight and therefore longer sortie range / loiter time and more weapons / sortie. We have used them since before the Falklands War in '82 and they proved their worth right there. You can get aircraft into the air quicker off a ramp than catapults and while we have used the Harrier and soon F35B with the ramps the Russians launch very capable Migs off of ramps and then use arrestor gear to retrieve them. Can I observe that just because the US doesn't do something that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing... Especially when we can build three of these carriers for less than the cost of ONE Ford Class ...

@ThePulseG

7 жыл бұрын

1chish No one said it's bad because the US Doesn't use it.

@tesstickle7267

7 жыл бұрын

steven boyer these can be fitted with cats and traps if and when needed. the jump just fires plane up,if you watch a normal take off the plane will drop slightly after leaving, this will do the opposite.

@chrismadge5472

7 жыл бұрын

Apparently your U.S. AV8B or as we Brits say, Harrier pilots loved the ski jumps. 👍☺️👌

A. FUCKING. RAMP. Jesus fuck Britain why cant you ever into catapults

I hope nothing kicks off between now and 2020 when according to the Navy they will be fully operational. (for 2020 read 2030 based on track record) We have no planes to fly off them and when and if we do they are so horrendously expensive so we can not afford many. Why on earth does the UK try to compete in the superpower stakes, we can not afford it, it is crazy.

@oneofone53

6 жыл бұрын

Peter Davies well we can the government just says we cant

If they ever do enter service I wonder how long it will be before one is mothballed and slowly being cannibalized for the other.

Good. We need strong allies.

That moment you realise you can build 4 QE carriers for the price of 1 GRF carrier.

it makes me proud to be a uk citizen

No nuclear reactor ? American & French carriers can go 30 years or more without refueling. What are the advantages of not going with nuclear ?

@zacharylaw9513

7 жыл бұрын

Not an advantage as such but a lot of European ships are mainly designed for coastal defense.

@MrTomtomtest

7 жыл бұрын

True that if you are not projecting your "power" all over the place like some people, fuel efficiency is less of a problem.

it will only have a small crew of about 650 people.

Does Royal Navy really need that much ships after Scotland's independence and Northern Ireland's reunification with its motherland?

Why not a catobar carrier?

@BlueonGoldZ

7 жыл бұрын

too expensive.

@eastsouth9548

7 жыл бұрын

look even brazil uses steam catapults.

@gobanito

7 жыл бұрын

I think France and Britain had planned on building a joint aircraft carrier, but they couldn't agree on what type. France preferred the catobar type Britain wanted a stobar. For awhile though, British pilots were being trained by the French aboard the DeGaulle in anticipation of a joint Franco-British catobar carrier. But apparently nothing ever came of it because the UK settled on the stobar type.

@eastsouth9548

7 жыл бұрын

gobanito a stobar is way less effective than a catobar. stobar jets can only carry a quarter or half the payload of a catobar jet. and with the types of low intensity bushfire wars being fought today,where you carry more bombs than missiles. all the more catobar is important.

The bigger the ship and wider the easier for the missiles to target it.

massive

Awesome. England has been a great ally to the USA, and their 2 new carriers can now sail proudly with USA's 11 aircraft carriers. One day we might have to use them against China and Russia. I live in Alaska far away from the lower 48 and right next to Russia and China. Alaska needs a navy. We do have 50 F-22 stealth "Raptors" here in Anchorage where I live and a whopping 54 Stealth F-35 "Lightnings" up in Fairbanks. And 1 squadron of F-15's and 1 squadron of F-16 Fighting Falcons. Plus we have 2 large army bases which have land based missiles and Nuclear missiles. Alaska also has 44 of the anti-nuke missiles designed to shoot down an incoming Nuke.(California has 20 of these defensive missiles. Thats all we have.) And I'm sure there are "Classified" things I don't know about up here. Eventually I fear Alaska, The USA, and England with whichever NATO countries help us are going to be in a very big war. A war that might be in Revelations in the Bible.

WTF only 679 crewman, how the hell would that ship function with that small number of crew? us carriers have over 5000 crew per ship..

What if someone just fires a few missiles and destroys it... DOes it have defences for such attacks.

Its a triump of british engineering. But its more expensive than its american counterparts without the catapault system.

_"Britain’s new aircraft carriers can’t defend themselves against latest hypersonic antiship missile"_ , anonymous British defense officials told the British press. _“The whole idea of the carrier is the ability to project power. But with no method of protecting themselves against missiles like the Zircon, the carrier would have to stay out of range, hundreds of miles out at sea. Its planes would be useless and the whole basis of a carrier task force would be redundant”_ _“It means the two ships, the first of which is not expected to be fully operational before 2020, could be rendered obsolete by this new development in hypersonic warfare despite costing up to £7 billion [US$8.9 billion] to build”_ _"study found that the Pentagon has no well-resourced program for either developing hypersonic missiles or countering them"_ _"The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is developing three primary solutions:directed energy weapons, railguns, and “left-of-launch” capabilities"_ _"None of this is to say that development and deployment of the BMD technologies described above will mark an end to the missile proliferation threat as we know it"_

$ 9 billion. Holly crap that is a lot of money.

@matthewkendall8592

7 жыл бұрын

bambang303378 Lot a Taxs

@wiryantirta

7 жыл бұрын

meanwhile... Zumwalt-class, Ford-class

@djrlathrop111

7 жыл бұрын

Well, for two carriers. That's $4.5 billion a ship, which is an airbase you can station anywhere with a coastline. It's a pretty good use of the money.

@coreywilliams1454

7 жыл бұрын

It would be "pretty good" if the aircraft were decent, it can only launch and land f35s which are utter shit.

@djrlathrop111

7 жыл бұрын

Corey Williams It would also be pretty good if you understood the capabilities of F35s, though apparently that's too much to ask.

I believe one other sadly she was sunk by the Japanese along with HMS Repulse off the coast of Singapore during WW2