I'm proud to see this, coming from an Englishman I enjoyed the idea that we used to have the greatest navy and think we should try and grow our navy with ships like these to become great again and defend our island whatever the cost may be.

@benedictadonis8426

3 жыл бұрын

A tip : watch series on Kaldrostream. I've been using them for watching lots of of movies during the lockdown.

@connorroyce9975

3 жыл бұрын

@Benedict Adonis yea, I've been using kaldrostream for years myself :D

@niuchajianfa6222

Жыл бұрын

lol

Beautiful ships for sure. Greetings from the U.S. We got a our back and you; ours!

@Whalebarf

5 жыл бұрын

What.

@cartconrad4426

5 жыл бұрын

Roger that

@rswahn52

5 жыл бұрын

Well a post that I can agree with 100%. I hope your new carriers are awesome.

@dylanwaplington

5 жыл бұрын

I live very close to there

@leaturk11

5 жыл бұрын

thanks, much appreciated comment.

never been in the navy or army nor do I have any connection but I fucking love this shit

British Gibraltar, UK Overseas Territory 🇬🇧 .Great Work !

This sort of thing fascinates me. What beautiful ships.

@raywhitehead730

11 ай бұрын

Your beauty is a failure.

Wow, the HMS Prince of Wales looks so amazing ship.

@lachlanchester8142

3 жыл бұрын

Wait until you see hms queen Elizabeth

Prince of Wales has been completed. Ready for action now

U can't say that is not one of the most beautiful things on earth

I hope that that the UK remembers that in the South Pacific they have an ally in the form of the Royal Australian Navy of the Commonwealth of Australia.

@DokktorDeth

4 жыл бұрын

Of course. No-one better.

@JA19

4 жыл бұрын

One hell of an ally and partner. Nothing but love for Australia and NZ too.

@craigdorrian7391

4 жыл бұрын

We will never forget our brothers, stay strong down there lads🇬🇧🇦🇺

@RichMantaray

4 жыл бұрын

u are not an ally u are us :)

@oscarmuffin4322

3 жыл бұрын

@@DokktorDeth Well actually New Zealand is better. Remember the whole Falklands conflict thing? We asked Australia to lend us some of their ships to take over the usual duties of British warships while they were off fighting the conflict. Australia said "No". We asked New Zealand... New Zealand happily sent some of their ships. Therefore New Zealand > Australia.

I've never read more wholesome comments from Americans and Australians

GB needs to build one more of these carriers about five years down the line. This would enable the RN to put two carrier strike groups to sea at the same time. This would allow a third carrier to be in port at all times for refitting, maintenance, re supply, and crew training. For a constant rotation.

@niuchajianfa6222

Жыл бұрын

lol can you afford it?

@raywhitehead730

11 ай бұрын

Dim wit, look where the Brit Navy is now.

Outstanding

Beautiful ships

I seem to remember during one of the UK draw downs that the Brits and the Frogs were going to be time sharing ships. Also the UK was going to have all their ships built in French yards. Glad to see you are coming back again and did away with that nonsense. You are still doing what the Russians still can't do, get a carrier that works.

@phoebus45

4 жыл бұрын

Just need the planes now.

@jayseaem

4 жыл бұрын

that was before Brexit happened.

@shononoyeetus8866

3 жыл бұрын

now there are plans for all RN ships to be built in the UK

@skylinecams7851

3 жыл бұрын

@@shononoyeetus8866 all RN ships are built in the UK, we haven't had a naval warship built abroad for over 100 years. Only supply ships are allowed to be built overseas.

@StewartWalker-hy1eo

Жыл бұрын

Most carrier technology is British so I don’t think we need help from anyone apart from this government that puts a budget on things

The QEC's (sorry to say for my american friends out there) are the most beautiful aircraft carriers i have ever seen, so simple and sleek, i just love it.

@Anglo_Saxon1

2 жыл бұрын

I doubt very much that the design is"simple".

@frank-ko6de

2 жыл бұрын

Good for you. Americans are just occupied with with with effectiveness and firepower and competence. Yours carries only 46 fighter jets, while the Americans carries at least 96 per each of their 12 active super carriers and 40 per each of their 20 amphibious ships. You can have your beauty and pageantry, which seems to be your specialty, while we deal with actuality and effectiveness and firepower. All the while waiting for our even bigger ford class carriers.👍👍👍👍😁😁😁😁

@Anglo_Saxon1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frank-ko6de I don't blame u for giving that reply mate,his comment was a bit shallow. However we're in this together my friend 🇬🇧🇺🇸👌

@frank-ko6de

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anglo_Saxon1 I understand that, Just pointing out the obvious. It is a beautiful ship, While our ships and planes have terrible paint jobs, to say the least. We're just focused on actual performance and effectiveness and domain domination, not ceremony. That's all.👍👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏🙏

@Anglo_Saxon1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frank-ko6de absolutely.

Great job Britain!! Love from the USA.

@terrybriggs6016

4 жыл бұрын

why thank you dear game boy, and much love to the.. THE U.S.A too.

Can launch 4 F-35 PER MINUTE - that is nuts. When you think they are all accounted for and supplied with automated munitions, raised to the flight deck and tested by a fully automated system then launched. It’s hard to think on how incredible it is to be able to launch 4 jets every 60 seconds all loaded with weapons. So literally landing jets, dropping to hanger, reloading/fuelling and at the same time lifting another 4 up to deck to launch every 60 seconds continuously. That is pretty incredible by anyone’s standards.

@borninjordan7448

4 жыл бұрын

Yep. 36 F-35s in nine minutes.

@douglastodd1947

2 жыл бұрын

SORRY TO CORRECT YOU HE SAID 4 EVERY 2 MINUTES

Good to see the Royal Navy upgrading its fleet and capabilities. Now if we can only get the rest of NATO to follow suit.

@watchingthehawks355

4 жыл бұрын

Germany not interested,what will you gonna do?Brexit is better you guys can enjoy yourselves.

@jayseaem

4 жыл бұрын

@Intellectual Ammunition i agree.

@_tertle3892

4 жыл бұрын

The navy’s always looking to up grade were an island nation we have to

@frank-ko6de

2 жыл бұрын

You guys only spend 1.79 percent of GDP instead of the agreed upon 2percent.what nonsense are you talking about?

@4:30 Interesting how that was a myth with the F-35's being harder on aircraft carriers decks from the heat of the engines. This is not as severe as some say but new ships are built to withstand these new temperatures and extremes from the F-35. (Great aircraft)

@raywhitehead730

11 ай бұрын

Not so. Your a dim wit. Look where the Brit navy is niow.

We should of kept HMS illustrious and save HMS Ocean and HMS Bulwark, the government thinks that scraping the Albion Class Assault Ship will save us money buy using the Auxiliary Navy Ships like RFA Argus and RFA Fort Victoria and let's not forget RFA Tidespring. As a Royal Marine myself I know how important the Navy and her ships are.

@greenking333

6 жыл бұрын

Naz Adder I totally agree with you these ships are ultra important and they should preserve them

@studmalexy

6 жыл бұрын

how about this for a defence solution? pray to YHWH and he will bless us and crush our enemies and those who stand against his children?...alsoim pretty good with a sling and know that the hand of YHWH will supernaturally guide my rock to hit my target

@henryvagincourt

6 жыл бұрын

Simple, the at sea nuclear deterrent, should be funded by the whole nation and not dumped on the MOD, 41 billion.

@fisherking1863

6 жыл бұрын

Now this guy knows what he is talking about. The reason they are being scrapped is because in polaticians eyes they are being used as lifeboats to bring muslim men to europe. They were built at barrow shipyard to land a regiment of mariens to form a bridgehead in forien lands

@deeremeyer1749

6 жыл бұрын

Royal Marines are permitted to criticize their "government" on social media? ROFLMAO.

Fleet carriers, good old day's.

God bless the HMS Prince of Wales and all the crew on bored they are all hard working.

@dudeonyoutube

3 жыл бұрын

Why you QE hate?

Great Job by UK building these ships I hope they build more. USA + UK Naval Hegemony is one of biggest guarantors or Peace in the World. Would be nice to get Japan on board too as they are expanding their Navy in big ways.

@James-dq7oi

6 жыл бұрын

Usually I'm at odds with Americans but if I saw these two carriers in a joint Anglo-American task force I think it would bring a tear to my eye

@mkgaming5823

5 жыл бұрын

The reason why the Japanese wont is because The US do not support the Japanese military/naval re-build up The UK is the only country that supports Japan in that. so if it did happen there would be tense relations between the US and Japan with the UK being in the middle as they agree with the Japanese but are close allies to the US

@davidputland5506

5 жыл бұрын

mk gaming can you blame us?

@CrazyNikel

5 жыл бұрын

@@mkgaming5823 Actually on the contrary, the US would like Japan to build up more. Japans SDF has drastically increased in size and funding. They know what China will do to get revenge. China is crazy pro nationalistic atm.

@alexb6821

4 жыл бұрын

Great statement but swap the word “peace” with “conflict”, then it would be correct!!

Looks awesome. Can't wait until yours is complete and ours so we can admire and compare them . Going to be badass ships.

I think there's a Battleship in world war two that was sunk named "HMS Prince of Wales" that fought with the mighty HMS Hood

@mkgaming5823

5 жыл бұрын

The UK has a tendency to use old ship names, a new HMS victorious is being bult not has a aircraft carrier but as a nuclear submarine

What the UK needs is to design and develop a home-grown 5-gen STOVL-capable plane to fly from the two Aircraft Carriers... ...and I'm not talking about the American F-35B; I'm on about a proper state-of-the-art British-built descendant of the Harrier that's not as overpriced as the F-35...

@callumcastle5080

6 жыл бұрын

absoutely

@peterson7082

6 жыл бұрын

+Confused Blue Dragon > *_"...and I'm not talking about the American F-35B; I'm on about a proper state-of-the-art British-built descendant of the Harrier that's not as overpriced as the F-35..."_* Which is?

@marleycummins1675

6 жыл бұрын

Nathan Peterson he’s saying it would be ideal if we could create a jet like that .

@Ratty98

6 жыл бұрын

its a bit late as Britain as already put a lot of money into the f35 and im pretty sure they will have licenses to make them at home when they are finished

@t43562

6 жыл бұрын

That would be a recipe for total disaster so fortunately pride and jingoism isn't what run the Navy. If you think the F-35 is expensive, wait till you try to develop a 5-gen aircraft that you're only going to sell in tiny numbers.

Now we need another two, and stack function with the other services- make the RAF flight deck capable. A movable function ratio according to modern needs- navy air and land shifting priority.

Well I did not expect the name prince of Wales to turn battleships to aircraft carrier they should have named her hms ark royal

Great work....love it.

They really down play the capacity of these ships. They can carry 4-5 squadrons of f35 in war. But as we can’t afford that, we just lie and say she’s built for 36 fast jets

This is vital to secure peace in the world.

No one thought the Harrier was worth a damn at the time.. Even in 1982 when the British sailed two carriers with task force with 20 planes and took out an airforce comprised with over 100 land based fighters.. 0 harrier loses...They performed so well the Americans bought them, and they never buy foreign military equipment. It worked so well they developed the F35B with the British.. The F35B may not have the range of the F35C but the British don't employ their carriers and airplanes like the Americans.. Different equipment, different use.. Don't mean it's less effective, it only mean the pilots have too be better fighter pilots because there air time is a little less then CATBAR aircraft..

@ryker4455

6 жыл бұрын

The US had Harriers in development with McDonnell Douglas in the 1970's.

@blech71

5 жыл бұрын

And that’s why our Marines in the U.S. still treasure the capability of the AV-8B’s that we still upgrade and operate. Eventually ours will get replaced by the new JSF but there are certain things that will always be remembered of the Harrier that that jet has done so well over the years. Some think of it ugly but it fills a unique role for sure.

@maxinator2002

5 жыл бұрын

Hammer 001 Don't forget about the undefeated F-15 Eagle!

@arcticpara7775

5 жыл бұрын

Jassy---US has alot of Foreign Equipt...do some research for christ sake

@goldenboy1803

5 жыл бұрын

Best comment

impressive it's very interessting it's great !!!

I saw these two in dock at Portsmouth. Truly magnificent.

@raywhitehead730

11 ай бұрын

Complete military moron. Look at the Brit navy now

Gimme like an hour special on this, best content

Let's get this thing afloat and ready 👍🇬🇧

They are very beautiful ships of war

I love this man

Huge

@trinitite4617

6 жыл бұрын

Elizabeth Armada thats what she said

@valerie80yearsago90

6 жыл бұрын

YUGE

Labor party will scrap them in 5 years if given the chance

@pineli6752

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed, the same goes for the Vanguard submarines.

@randombritishguy2686

4 жыл бұрын

I have a big distrust in labor, as all they do is bend the country over and give people money and the next people in office have to waste there term fixing it and the cycle repeats, labor can't handle any tuff situation, as for any economic issue they scrap our navy for the quick pound.

@Deadeye-sj3qc

4 жыл бұрын

@@randombritishguy2686 we have the same issues with the Democrats hear in the US. The bad part is they have the media so most of the world will only see one point of view point coming out of the US. Every liberal thinks that government can save the people. Weather it's British, American, or now Canada. I just wish that like minded people from all around the world, would step up with one voice and tell the politicians no more.

@mercymorn4143

4 жыл бұрын

The contract for building these two aircraft carriers was ordered and signed by a Labour government.

Awesome

woow love it

Awesome platform Great Britain awesome good job queen elizabeth and prince of whales job well done👍

Beautiful ☺️🇬🇧

God bless the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines 🍺

Good stuff.

On top of the two carriers, the Royal Navy should look at getting an LHA/LHD

@cool_cat007smoove3

6 жыл бұрын

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone I served on a LHA ship.

@oscarmike9613

6 жыл бұрын

What about HMS Albion and Bulwark?

@Spaceman9090

6 жыл бұрын

Albion and Bulwark are LPDs. Different role. A carrier is no substitute for a proper LHD. Hopefully we can fund one in the future.

When I first looked at it coming from America and knowing US carriers I thought it was dinky but looking around with the camera man, there really isnt nothing dinky about this ship.

Must be nice when your biggest ally has 6-9 ready at all times that can carry twice the aircraft compliment. So best scenario an additional 18(to 20 plus) times as many aircraft at the ready best case. Almost a 1000 aircraft conjunction ready to protect the world. USA/UK!!!

It broken down on its first trip like the TITANIC

My father worked at Cammell Lairds.

Why did the captain mention “politician” so many times? I thought this ship would serve the country not the politician

@ChameleonThe13

4 жыл бұрын

War toys ALWAYS serves only politicians...!

@paulsteaven

4 жыл бұрын

Their parliament always screw the Royal Navy after WW2.

@davidbrisbane7206

4 жыл бұрын

The politicans are in charge of the armed forces in the UK, but in theory the head of the armed forces is the Queen, who has delegated this job to Princess Philip. I think in a crisis, if the Queen spoke out and commanded the army to "Stand down", they would obey no matter what the politicians said.

@DokktorDeth

4 жыл бұрын

Perhaps because politicians take the decisions to build the things.

@tc9634

4 жыл бұрын

... politicians are the democratically elected representatives of the country who are elected to make those decisions

1:17 what's wrong with the Captain's eyebrows

@uptoon8096

6 жыл бұрын

lol

@brothersg-s8087

6 жыл бұрын

coffee od

2 Carriers means the empire stikes back😂🤣🤣🤣

@watchingthehawks355

4 жыл бұрын

My thoughts,Brexit means back to tyranny and authoritarianism

@sausagejockyGaming

4 жыл бұрын

Moses Lochang back to tyranny? We havent had tyranny for hundreds of years and even then EVERY nation had tyranny, we was one of the first democratic nations, especially with the magna carta

Cammell Laird 5:44, my Dad worked there.

@guycrawshaw

6 жыл бұрын

Socratease 1 I worked in Lairds on that carrier, got a video on here of me climbing around it

whats up with the ramp from nitro circus?

@ralphlouismendoza1977

4 жыл бұрын

Hammer 001 it’s because you guys can’t afford a catapult.

And she has that new ship smell, too!😁

Nice

Like the video guys and gals!!

Wow

@JD-uh9od

6 жыл бұрын

Just looked up cost 3.1 billion

Cool

You also have a jail on both ships. lol

Very impressive ships but can't help thinking they should of gone back to the steam catapults. Maybe we could of had a navalised version of the Typhoon aswell. I think that way the carriers would have more options in the types of aircraft they could carry & not have to rely on the F35B

@Spaceman9090

6 жыл бұрын

We could not afford to develop a navalised Typhoon. F35 is our best and only bet.

@NoFaithNoPain

6 жыл бұрын

No, its quite affordable. The problem is that it would need an extra half ton of weight to make it strong enough. That would reduce the amount of ordinance it could carry so the plane would not be cost effective or of decent performance in the modern theatre of war.

@Spaceman9090

6 жыл бұрын

Afraid not. The F35 is the best bet. And there are far better off the shelf solutions such as the F18 if we had gone down that route.

What are the white strips on the lower hull?

Very impressive and compact. I wonder what the final cost is ? 🤔😊

@seemopps

2 жыл бұрын

just over £6 billion

@seemopps

2 жыл бұрын

but then again you need to think about the ships needed to be built first in order to protect the carrier which consists of 2 air defense destroyers, 2 anti sub frigates and a submarine. all this combined will cost around 15 billion pounds then more for the jets that are stationed on board the AC, not a bad price if you think about it

They should be a HMS Winston Churchill

Nice video. Between us, the U.S. and U.K. will soon have 13 working carriers. That will make Vlad the Impaler think twice.

@davidanthony8290

6 жыл бұрын

Russia's navy is a joke. Quite honestly their navy would be wiped out within a week of a war starting. I'm all for these carriers but the money may be better spent on forming a new infantry division or a couple of brigades.

@conormcmaster1113

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidanthony8290 not really a joke, there submarine force is rather capable

So pOW won't have the Marined landing craft onboard then like HMS ocean had?

@tommybason6057

4 жыл бұрын

No, its a dedicated aircraft carrier as opposed to an assault ship like ocean

Remember the time when Britain had more aircraft carriers than US

@YARROWS9

4 жыл бұрын

1943 I think.

@DokktorDeth

4 жыл бұрын

Why?

@michaelfoulis7438

4 жыл бұрын

@@DokktorDeth Because of the Axis powers, you dont mess with the Royal Navy!

@theant9821

3 жыл бұрын

Britain loaned a carrier to the United States to use in the Pacific. Lend lease was needed by both sides of the deal, Britain and America needed each other to win.

@bearsagainstevil

3 жыл бұрын

we also came to America with the original idea for the atomic bomb we had a team working on it prior to Americas entry to the war ,but Churchill felt it would be finished faster if we gave the idea and team to the Americans .what not many people know is because it was our idea we had a veto on Americas use of the bomb . if we hadn't been fighting ww2 we could have developed the bomb on our own in Australia .then after the war they found out one of the "British" scientists was a Russian spy and relations between the USA and uk cooled . so they wouldn't give us a bomb so we set up our own project and developed them on our own .we were the third country to have a nuclear weapon but first with the idea

The Royal British Navy Military Hierarchy should also continue to invent,build and develop all---powerful,all---advanced and all---high---tech aircraft carriers also known as "flat tops" just like the awesome,brand---new and highly sophisticated U.S. Navy aircraft carrier named the U.S.S. Gerald Ford which already passed sea trials and now called,mobilized and deployed to its tour of duty/duties all over the world.Semper Fidelis

@gregpineda8660

4 жыл бұрын

And Yes,The Royal British Navy sailors definitely needs much,much and much bigger British aircraft carriers in the near future like the fleets of U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Strike Groups!!!

Wasnt hms prince of wales a heavy battle cruiser durimg ww2?

@richardross5928

4 жыл бұрын

It's the 7th British navy ship to be named that

@davster9853

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardross5928 ahhh ok thx for the info i was a little confused

I first thought of the one which failed to protect the Hood and was sunk off the coast of Malaya in WWII when I saw "HMS Prince of Wales"

@ndr8469

6 жыл бұрын

Jun Xian Wu you mean in the international waters of the south China sea? 😁 We are still around.

@trevorfuller6393

5 жыл бұрын

Jun Xian Wu, How exactly are you supposed to protect & stop the immediate & consistently accurate effects of a bombardment of the equivalent of a floating battery (The Bismarck) of its 18" Naval Guns, when hitting & destroying an aging battleship (HMS Hood) in mid-Atlantic during a full naval engagement?? Virtually Impossible! Yes! You're right later in 1942, the HMS Prince of Wales & the HMS Repulse were both sunk in the South China Sea without then enjoying the protection of aircraft cover/protection. Winston Churchill did not include an aircraft carrier group to support & protect these two (2) vulnerable ships & their crews then!!

@taffyducks544

5 жыл бұрын

Failed to protect?! The hood wasn't capable of fighting?! It was 2 vs 2 in that engagement...and against the Mighty Bismarck!!!. Sounds like a really ignorant remark.

are they exactly the same? and if thats the case is the second one cheaper?

@Alucard-gt1zf

6 жыл бұрын

Common Sense exactly the same as each other just different names

@chloejenkins1152

6 жыл бұрын

no they are not the same,prince of wales has missle defence Liz will be upgraded

Very impressed. She's big! ,(But she won't fit ALL of Australia in her, not quite)

Funny how POW "Learned from the Mistakes of QE" yet it has more problems than QE

Let's go Scotland! Home of the best ship builders in the world. What would you lads do without us? U get all our oil too!

@zipz8423

4 жыл бұрын

Wonder how straight the keel is :P

@harleyokeefe5193

3 жыл бұрын

Zak Vince what would u do without England u mean No economy No currency No allies No population No military No nukes

Is there a difference between the Queen Elizabeth and Prince a Wales ? or will they be identical ?

@georgewest3787

5 жыл бұрын

Identical. Both will deploy for the same types of missions, so they'll more than likely get the same air wing, and in every other way than that they are built to be twins.

@conormcmaster1113

3 жыл бұрын

one is a man and the other is a woman

👍

By G*d, I wish I was young enough to serve on this ship!

Modern Western supercarriers are advancing so quickly. its crazy

RULE BRITANNIA, BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES ⚓️🇬🇧⚓️

@deadlylizard1446

6 жыл бұрын

Atlas what do u mean

@22aj55

6 жыл бұрын

BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES.

@motey99

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe after another 20 are built Britannia will rule the waves

I worked on both and be rest assured the problems on the first boat definitely did not get rectified for the second boat......the same problems were happening and the lads on the tools were the ones rectifying these problems without input of management whom might I add are earning 50-150 grand a year. Sorry not sorry

Can't understand why were going down the f35b when we should have designed our own aircraft from when they started building the carriers. Understand it's 5th generation but I'm sure we could have designed something

@suddenlytitan739

6 жыл бұрын

do you guys even have the budget though? you would need to fund the research, development, and production of two carriers and its aircrafts from scratch at the same time

@demanischaffer

6 жыл бұрын

Tommy Smith For the price of the F35 and the capabilities it's not that expensive

@paulstewart7529

6 жыл бұрын

politics

@slippingjimmy2325

5 жыл бұрын

you kids don't have a big enough piggybank or like USA, enough printing presses to afford that

There will be loads of room on them as we can't afford any planes.

@geordiebatt

6 жыл бұрын

Without doubt we should've sourced more cost effective aircraft for these beauties.

@1chish

6 жыл бұрын

Bryan - Any more nonsense you'd care to share with us? Do tell us why we can't afford the aircraft and if we can't why have we ordered 42 (as a starter)?? We have 12 with two more due by Xmas in the USA where maintainers and pilots are being trained. More will be delivered next year as production ramps up at LM (priority was given to US orders).

@simplon--b6538

6 жыл бұрын

First, the F-35 has over 1000 deficiencies to be fixed, so you are getting overpriced prototypes. Lockheed has no timetable for fixing them all. Some were already shifted from Block 3 to Block 4! Block was planned as an upgrade, not a fix to basic design flaws. Second, the F-35B is already so heavy, that it won't be possible to fit all the planned upgrades in it. Lockheed and some generals in the Pentagon can dance around and tell you stories of unicorns riding along the rainbow, but the Pentagon Watchdogs are extremely pessimistic with the program and judge it like this: “The program is actually not on a path toward success but instead on a path toward failing to deliver the full Block 3F capabilities for which the Department is paying almost $400 billion by the scheduled end of System Development and Demonstration (SDD) in 2018.” If the carriers would have been build with catapults and arresting gear, like a proper CATOBAR carrier, there would have been more options for the fighter acquisition. The carriers would have been more expensive, but the Airwing could have been far cheaper. Also, other assets cannot operate from these STOVL carriers. Like an E-2 Hawkeye early warning plane. No long-range submarine hunters, like the S-3 Viking, no cargo planes like the C-2 Greyhound. The US Navy is axing these assets too because they are too stupid to use their 700 billion dollar budget properly in the Pentagon. But they can bring them back, cause they have proper CATOBAR carriers. The French carrier is also capable of using all the CATOBAR fighters and planes.

@1chish

6 жыл бұрын

Kack Boon - I guess you completely missed SDSR2010 when the new UK Government had a long hard (and expensive) look at completing both QE carriers as CATOBAR and using fewer F-35C rather than F-35B aircraft. The costs of fitting EMALS was a) unproven, b) un-deliverable in the time frame and c) Horrendously expensive. So we decided against it and completed them as STOVL carriers. Now you used the term "like a proper CATOBAR carrier" as if anything else isn't 'proper'? The UK initiated, developed and brought into use EVERY major carrier development since it built the very first carrier in 1918. We know carriers even if we have not had the finance to build them for a few years. We also know how to use STOVL aircraft as we also invented and developed the Harrier. Who are you to say CATOBAR is better than STOVL? How is the Gerald R Ford doing at $16 Bn while we built two for $10 Bn? OK so we can't land French Rafales? Well they should have not reneged on the contract to build 2 more carriers when we built our two. They wanted CATOBAR but couldn't afford it. We will cross deck USMC F-35Bs but not US Navy F-35Cs. Big deal. And Hawkeye is now old design and we have better air defence with our Type 45 Destroyers and Crowsnest enabled Merlin helicopters. And as for ASW Vikings? We will have Merlin HM2 ASW helicopters, the best ASW ships with our Type 23 Frigates and of course Astute submarines. And yes the French carrier. That does indeed have CATOBAR but is forever in dry dock (as it is now and will be for 18 months). So where are the French Navy Rafales now? In hangars somewhere. The QE Class is a further development of carrier design and each was built for 1/3rd the cost of what you laughingly call a 'proper carrier' like the Ford Class. Lets see which goes IOC first shall we? The first QE is in Portsmouth after very intense builders trials. It is being fitted out with on board weapons and specialist mission kit before heading out for what is called 'FOST' this month. She will be Commissioned in November. In Q1 2018 she sails for heavy weather trials in the North Atlantic and then on to Eastern USA to take on board UK F-35s for flight trials. She will then take on USMC F-35s to gain intense mission capability. And IOC in December 2018. She is as much a 'proper carrier' as anything else given the initial sortie rate is better than a Nimitz even if the 24 hour rate is 10% less. 2 minutes from hangar to launch. Try that on a Nimitz let alone a Ford.

@simplon--b6538

6 жыл бұрын

The USN and the French Navy are using CATOBAR, look at the other junk sailing the oceans. STOBAR is a joke, STOVL is even worse. So yeah, CATOBAR is the proper way to do it. It is more flexible from the assets which can be used in the airwing and it gets the jets up with proper fuel load and weapons. There was no way to build the QE with CATOBAR, cause it was not designed in. It is way more than just changing the flight deck. It was just a big soap opera and not a proper study. The Harrier was a simple, hard to fly machine. The carrier could be simple. But with the F-35, which is insanely complex to build, operate and maintain, the ships cost are way too high for a STOVL jet. The carriers are so expensive, that the high price, constant need for fixes and high operational and maintenance cost for the F-35 are going to financially kill something. But hey, cross-decking with the plane crasher from the USMC is better anyway. Assets like the E-2 got upgrades for fuck sake, it is just a proven airframe with new radar and computers and the "blackout" class destroyers have their radar where? Speaking about hight, not much above the waterline, where the E-2 can fly MILES above the waterline. Welcome to the concept of radar horizon, it is part of science. And don't come up with the radar range, that is in the open sky, not straight above the waterline. A helicopter is not going to cut it. The range and speed are severely limited compared to proper planes. A ship is very slow compared to all flying assets. Do you even know how stupid it sounds to compare a few submarine hunters and early warning platform to a complete fleet being outstretched around the carrier? The manpower and ships needed is crazy and it won't be anywhere near the covered which can be achieved by air. I also would be careful to make fun of an aircraft carrier in drydock, which is 20 years old and is going to get a REFIT. I didn't mention the Ford Class at all. The Ford is a nice example of a project being build BEFORE the design phase of all components, systems and the ship itself was done. It is like the F-35 of the seas. Also, despite the problems with the Ford, the US Navy will have a working air wing. They want to cut down on F-35C numbers and buy way more F-18 Super Hornets Block 3 (from the Boeing Advanced Super Hornet demonstrator). They are going to work, while the F-35C is unsafe to operate from carriers and the F-35B has the usual F-35 trouble + the overweight problem. The sortie rate of the QE is a dream, cause the F-35 is junk. So the Ford will have some combat value, while the QE class will be cheaper.

I'm glad England and USA are allies.

@conormcmaster1113

3 жыл бұрын

whats england

If there's a third carrier then they should named it HMS Repulse

@toxiicwarfare9698

5 жыл бұрын

HMS Terror Or HMS Erebus is a good choice. Or HMS Victory as sign of respect to Horatio Nelson

@taffyducks544

5 жыл бұрын

HMS Bevan!!!

@michaelfoulis7438

4 жыл бұрын

@@taffyducks544 Hms By Jove!! , look it up :)

wearing hard hats..good....that's what I like to see.....health and safety at work

My dream is to be a helicopter pilot stationed on this ship

For an enlisted man those bunks are really spacious. The inclusion of a tv screen in the sleep area is a bit problematic but I'm sure they'll work it out.

The mighty Queen Elizabeth.

Are they ready??? Costs???

Royal Britania rules the waves..and the U.S Austrailia N.A.T.O

Oh yeah the PoW badge

Impressive alright but I wonder if the right decision was made to go with the F35B and Ski Jump deck vs F35C and CAT TRAP configuration ?

@Andrew-is7rs

6 жыл бұрын

Jacobs_Rifles They were specifically designed around the F35B. The cost of traps etc and poss nuclear would of meant only 1 carrier to be built. Invincible class were superb for the UK.... Now we will have two, far far more capable carriers that can hold 3x each what an Invincible ever could. A far cry from no carrier capability at all.

@ronclark9724

6 жыл бұрын

Since the British don't use their aircraft carriers in the same manner as the Americans, I say the British did choose correctly. The QE class carriers are just a larger version of USS America, more than a amphibious assault ship without a well dock. Think of them as a larger jack of all trades type carrier which can be configured for many different missions. Not only will they be more powerful than a Invincible class light carrier, they can also be a more powerful than Ocean class helicopter assault carrier. Do MORE than either individually with just one ship... The British have no intentions of operating them like the American Nimitz class super carriers...

@simplon--b6538

6 жыл бұрын

STOVL means fewer weapons and less range for the airwing. It means higher cost for the AIRwing vs higher cost for the carrier with a CATOBAR design. The USS America is a piece of shit. It was ordered by some idiots, which want to turn the US Marine Corps into another naval air wing. It is the US Navies job to do the air missions and the Marines only got into that playing field, because of the Harrier. The F-35 is not the Harrier, it is overly complex, expensive and 15 to 20 years behind schedule. Also, not having a CATOBAR flight deck means not having all the other Catobar fighters and planes... not even hosting friendly ones. No F-18, Rafale, E-2 Hawkeye or C-2 Greyhound is ever going to land on these flight decks. So far for being a "multi".

@ronclark9724

6 жыл бұрын

As if the British could afford all of those jets. NOT. One QE class carrier replaces two ships, a Invincible class light carrier and a Ocean class assault ship. With two QE class carriers the British are increasing their military capabilities without increasing their cost. They can carry more fighters, more helicopters, and more troops than they do presently. The British did NOT build the QE class carriers to match US Nimitz class. A QE class carrier cost the British £3 billion, not US$12 billion the Ford class did.

@simplon--b6538

6 жыл бұрын

The Ford is a Ford class, not a Nimitz class. Focusing on bigger ships is not always smart. Big ships are a big target. And I don't see any improvement here. Helicopters are kinda short ranged, so the amphibious ships need to be closer to a shore, while a carrier could stay further back. Some real anti-air capabilities would free up an air defense destroyer from guarding the QE class. All these carriers have is the shitty old Phalanx CIWS.

This thing will probably go the same way it's predecessor went ( not by Japanese warplanes this time though)

Before I scroll down I already know thats theres some American bragging about his own country and saying "Im American" in the start of every comment

@ndr8469

6 жыл бұрын

Raphael Smithwick it is just in case you might think he's a Russian Troll 😂

@GH-oi2jf

5 жыл бұрын

Raphael Smithwick - I’m American. I’m not interested in bragging rights, I just want our best allies to be strong. I wisg Britain could afford to do better than this.

@OmmerSyssel

5 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf genderspecific toilets & cultural enriching minorities are important societal priorities to be acknowledged

With F-35s awesome

I’ve been on that boat

It's not always the size of a ship that counts but the destructive power it can unleash on a enemy threat if properly armed with the right equipment supplied and available ? Just a point of view 😂

Good stuff. Can sure chase around some goat hearders in Toyota pick ups in these things. 🐐🐐🐐🤣😉