"insert comment here showing my dislike for this because I have lived behind a rock for the last 50 years and I can't come to terms with how the world is and I want to leave my country open to attack from Russia, I also love green power because I am telling you this from power generated via gas turbines"

@JohnSmith-kz1pg

8 жыл бұрын

Hey you again....you sure do like your battleships

@cameronrogers4129

7 жыл бұрын

TuttyFruttynuts Jeremy Corbin ?

@redheadrusskie

7 жыл бұрын

TuttyFruttynuts Lost it when you said Russia will attack

@user-0xDEEDBEEF

6 жыл бұрын

Why on earth will Russia attack you and your country? Historically it is Britain who attacked Russia a few times but Russia never attacked Britain.

@patrickalan4087

6 жыл бұрын

u just might

Cannot wait for it to enter service. A ship to be reckoned with.

@SKIBOOSH1

7 жыл бұрын

don't you mean a ship not to be reckoned with

@gatolocoverga152

7 жыл бұрын

to protect the falklands?

@bigal640

7 жыл бұрын

gatolocoverga152 don't think so its not a big threat but could be used there if attacked

@mscott6005

7 жыл бұрын

with the amount of cut backs the the royal navy has had even Switzerland would kick our ass, and yes I know Switzerland does not have a navy.

@mscott6005

7 жыл бұрын

dz it will be as majestic as a turd in a swimming pool

One Day... Just One Day I'll Be In The Royal Navy On That Ship

@bradleyfisher9814

7 жыл бұрын

i have the same dreams

@greenking333

5 жыл бұрын

CrazySharkGaming join the Royal Navy if you can

@specialforcesnews3143

4 жыл бұрын

You won't be on that ship. All the crew are picked before deployment and when you join you would most likely be deployed on a Smaller vessel such as a Type 45 Destroyer or a Type 26 Frigate.

His "360°" view seem more like 180.

@garywhite8274

8 жыл бұрын

+Raimaels Mag It's 360° but part of that is steel etc.

@bennlonelyboy

8 жыл бұрын

+Raimaels Mag will be 360 using samsungVR

@kawaiikoifish8326

8 жыл бұрын

+Raimaels Mag It'll probably have rear view cameras.

@IReallyMissCybertron

8 жыл бұрын

+Raimaels Mag It's a measurement standardization thing. Britain's 180 degrees metric is equivalent to the American 360 degrees standard. I mean c'mon, this is their largest ship, and it's barely larger than any of our 11 WASP class and America class ships in service, and certainly much smaller than any of our 12 carriers in service. They might as well be measuring weight with stones. This is obviously a joke. I have tremendous respect and admiration for our brothers across the sea and they have my best wishes. Realizing that this is KZread, I had to make that clear. That said, I'm sure many butthurt, stupid people will still overlook this heavy-handed disclaimer and respond with embarrassing fervor.

@procrastinatingfish

8 жыл бұрын

+I really miss Cybertron... Its not small by any means at 70,000 tons. But if we are building a carrier of this size then we should have cats and traps. The present government understood this and tried to change it but it was committed to the build. Personally, in an age where carriers are considered 'old school' we should have built two smaller 30 - 40,000 ton carriers and build a couple more type 45 destroyers with the money saved.

I like how this was done. Short, to the point, and full of information. Rare BBC video.

Gordon Ramsay can easily make 5000 meals a day

It's beautiful well done Britain we will stand proud once again x

Holy shit thats massive I start wondering how they make these things?

@zipz8423

8 жыл бұрын

+ActiveGamer They build them in modules, sections then weld them together, basically.

@SuperCompany007

8 жыл бұрын

+ActiveGamer /watch?v=hntfADBhwCA This is a video form the company that made it. It shows how they built the blocks and moved into position.

@kevinwaddell8720

8 жыл бұрын

+ActiveGamer Massive? at 65K tons when the average American carrier is 100K tons to start?

@zipz8423

8 жыл бұрын

Kevin Waddell I think its probably closer to 70,000 tons.

@gamblemadman

8 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Waddell Are you trying to say a 65k ton ship is not massive?

Actually backerys have been on board Royal Navy boats since before WWII for instance HMS Belfast.

looking forward to seeing it deploy

It sucks its not a nuclear powered, it could've save them an awful lot of diesel fuel

@666darkwisdom

8 жыл бұрын

+Lei Barbosa I thought the same thing, in 21st century making diesel powered aircraft carrier is so dumb

@Benjd0

8 жыл бұрын

+666darkwisdom Not really, just look at France. They're going to be left without an aircraft carrier for 18 months soon as it has to go in for it's lengthy refuelling process. That has to be done every 7 years or so. When you have plenty of ships to replace them like the US (Which also helps drive the cost down on all the facilities and training needed) it makes a lot of sense. With 1 or 2 carriers it can potentially leave you quite vulnerable.

@666darkwisdom

8 жыл бұрын

TehDocc well in terms of warfare if you cut out supply of fuel to the aircraft carrier it will be a sitting duck, meanwhile nuclear powered ship will be operational for at least 5 years, so it does not make sense to have such vessel witch is designed to operate in far off regions being dependent on fossil fuel, where you have a possibility of shortage of fuel to make it function as a fighting unit

@SeaToby11

8 жыл бұрын

+666darkwisdom Nonsense, even nuclear propelled carriers have to be refueled with jet fuel, and replenished with food and supplies every week. May as well as refuel the ship's engines too...

@666darkwisdom

8 жыл бұрын

SeaToby11 lol "might as well" don't compare amount of fuel needed to run the freaking aircraft carrier and actual aircraft,

looks amazing

What's the wifi password?

@Chickenworm9394

7 жыл бұрын

Same as the login name, no spaces

1:44 think he means Short take off and vertical landing (F-35s)

@Tremulousnut

8 жыл бұрын

+Bluestreak The B model can land vertically like a Harrier.

@bluestreak6532

8 жыл бұрын

Tremulousnut Yeah but they can't take off vertically

@Tremulousnut

8 жыл бұрын

Bluestreak They can be done with the F35B, it's just rarely done because it's unsafe.

@raeivaj

8 жыл бұрын

+Tremulousnut And the vertical take off uses more fuel than the short one. Anyway, I think that they are going to use the F35C because is better than the B version and they could land on US's carriers and vice versa.

@Benjd0

8 жыл бұрын

+pipita3000 The C variant requires a catapult to operate off a carrier so they wont be buying that version (There was a short time in 2010 when they were going to go with a catapult but they changed back to STOVL).

That paint wasn't scratched when they berthed the ship after it was first floated up.....

@JBlackjackp

7 жыл бұрын

that's because the painted it after they floated it.

butiful royal navy today

@susanleake5629

4 жыл бұрын

Brand new aircraft carrier scrapes down the side all ready is the captain got L plates can't they get it painted over quickly

i hope it hasnt got the same engines as the other surface fleet vessels is it the destroyers or the frigates keep breaking down--------

@nrjelley

8 жыл бұрын

+stanley tomlinson destroyers.

It can also operate Lynx, Merlins, Apache's and Chinooks

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

ToonandBBfan Wildcat, not lynx but not that much of the wildcat, more Merlin.

These ships will end up in the RAN as helicopter carriers if Australia still exist as a free country in in 40 years time. That's how forward thinking our Admirals are.

What a beast, people slag it off, but believe me, HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince Of Wales are and will be the world's best

@ernestogastelum9123

4 жыл бұрын

funny how you think they can compete against US carriers

Largest ever warship to date should be the title

1:25 Fucking shameful - they're using Windows XP... And why isn't it using a nuclear engine?

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

+snbartUK its stupid made two 60000 tons carriers and made them vstol. its a "i want but i cant" better only 1 nuclear carrier catobar"

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

+snbartUK xD the svtol hasn't the same capability of charge than the catobar the f35 c cheaper and most powerful than the f35b. the charles de gaulle is the best carrier not US ever

@FallenPhoenix86

8 жыл бұрын

"F-35B is better for maintenance costs" - Of all F-35 variants the B has the most moving parts and the most complex control logic... It most certainly will not be cheaper to maintain. Source: I'm a mechanical engineer and this is common sense...

@Andrew-is7rs

8 жыл бұрын

+kamikaze234 ? The UK could of easily made them nuclear. But why? The UK has a fantastic merchant navy, and has commonwealth allies across the globe. The US doesnt have the same ties the UK does. So why make one ship 2x as expensive when you can make 2 that are the most advanced in the world. The UK invented the carrier, it also has the most advanced hunter killers on the planet and the most advanced destroyers to defend her. And ate allowed in 50+ ports around the world in just her commonwealth. There is no need for nuclear carriers for Britain. The Ford is bigger, but at an extraordinary cost, and theres only one. The UK has two truly enormous carriers, and are the most advanced in the world. I say well done RN for great procurement through the British BAE systems and partners.

@FallenPhoenix86

8 жыл бұрын

Fek The First "The Ford is bigger, but at an extraordinary cost, and theres only one. The UK has two truly enormous carriers, and are the most advanced in the world." Only one so so far... the Ford class will replace the Nimitz class so eventually there will be about 10 of them... add to that the Nimitz class is already more capable than the QE Class. As for being enormous.. no not really, most if not all post war American carriers were larger, QE & PoW are about the same size as the Kuznetsov class, mid sized... not huge, not small. Lastly the QE & PoW are not the most advanced carriers in the world and never will be.

3 inch thick glass eh? Idk how thick it takes for glass to be bullet proof, aka, stops everything up to 50cal and even there I'm not sure since I haven't considered the AP variants for every rifle calibers. But 3 inch is really thick. It might even make or give a serious challenge for smaller canons (20 to 35mm) mounted on warships to damage light material and especially here, the bridge itself. When people ask me: How can a 25mm chain gun or a 30mm chain gun, maybe a good old spray of 20mm CIWS, ever be used to cause considerable damage to a full size warship? I usually tell them that against light armement, pieces of equipment and maybe some primary gun or guns, it's a decent idea to fire at those with those small calibers, but, I always tell them that's its better to fire at the bridge because that way you know you can do some serious damage, specially since there's a lot of important human but also material assets in that area. With 3 inch of glass, I seriously don't know.

Ever heard of de-interlacing?

ooo minibus sized impressive

all very nice, but do we have any aircraft to put on it???

@kelvinfoote9897

8 жыл бұрын

+dave smith Not yet. And when we do, it will be an aircraft which is far too compromised to do any 1 job really well. The Sea Harriers were designed primarily to protect the fleet from air attack. Bombing of land targets and ant-ship duties were very much secondary roles. And even the SHar was an emergency measure, after the government decided to scrap our large conventional carriers. The air group of Phantoms and Buccaneers (with Gannett AEW) on Ark Royal was regarded as the most potent combination the RN ever had. They realised 1 aircraft just couldn't do every role well. I fear they haven't learnt from past wisdom.

@davesmith654

8 жыл бұрын

+Elizabeth Dewitt That's a start, but not much there with a good range. I'm not sure of the range of an F35...that's if they ever get it operational

@davesmith654

8 жыл бұрын

Maybe you're not old enough to remember the TSR2. Years ahead of it's time, scrapped by a Labor government. Will that happen with the F35, or D.A.V.E as it's been called: delayed and very expensive!

OGM, that Win XP grass made me hight!

01.57 when u looking at...wich word is it??

Argus, Glorious, Courageous, Furious, Hermes, Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable, Colossus, Triumph, Vengeance, Majestic, Hercules, Leviathan, Ark Royal, so many carrier names they could have used and yet they go for QE, what a lack of imagination.

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

costelloj70 Sure

Its unfortunate that they insisted on using the F35B rather than the F18 with electromagnetic catapults. Could have saved the country a hell of a lot of money. Though its not surprising, the MoD's procurement department(s) work about as quickly as a tortoise running a marathon.

@HyperionNyx

7 жыл бұрын

Eurofighter Typhoon isn't the way of the future. In mock dogfights it was disappointing.

@tesstickle7267

7 жыл бұрын

HyperionNyx you mean the training they helped other fighters do? the typhoons and the pilots weren't asked to run rings around the others,they needed to learn therefore practice firing at a target (target being the typhoon) was never meant to do anything other than that lol

@HyperionNyx

7 жыл бұрын

Lewis Pollard MOCK dogfights... jesus.

@tesstickle7267

7 жыл бұрын

HyperionNyx yeah well i know different. you sit on your ass thinking you know this and that👍 those training flights were to let others practice and sharpen their skills. the typhoon was never meant to win or put up a huge fight!! kind of defeats the purpose of trying to train if they make it too difficult. suggest you get down to the local office and sign up for the engineers. work on the things and other aircraft and you'll see that they are extremely capable,easily one of the most capable aircraft in the sky at dog fights. call it mock all you want,you need to understand that these"mock fights" are to train people, not test the air craft to its limits,they most certainly wouldn't tell everyone that their protection aircraft are rubbish either.

@numbersix100

7 жыл бұрын

Josh W. I agree. This purchased was the biggest purchasing blunder this country has ever made. These "carriers" can't handle decent fighters as they have no catapult or arrester gear. Madness. Then there's the f35b itself, can't turn so it's not a fighter. It's too fat and heavy. At 90 mins loiter time it's useless for ground support and with such high wing loading a 30mm round will take it down. Two bombs, you can't call it a bomber either. What a mess. Canada and Australia are both wisely massively reducing the numbers they intend to purchase. Thank god we have the eurofighter to defend these shores.

Was that winXP??

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

sparkss4 The carrier doesn't run on XP. It was rumoured that it does but it doesn't. While many on board systems used by contractors for various tasks use Windows XP, Windows 7 and various other operating systems, none of these are directly involved in running the vessel and will not be present when the ship enters operation service according to the Ministry of Defence. The new carriers are the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the rest of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next 10 years. Shared Infrastructure is a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs. "The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational, this also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.”

seems archaic

@zipz8423

8 жыл бұрын

+mokpoly Huh what?

win xp at 1:23 ? :D

@bennlonelyboy

8 жыл бұрын

+Mike Zeller i see that too lel

@mjl9693

8 жыл бұрын

+Mike Zeller more reliable

@SteelZ06

8 жыл бұрын

+Mike Zeller that's 98

Come on BBC - Please deinterlace your videos before uploading them for streaming - or even better, shoot 50fps progressive, the fields look nasty.

1:32 engineers doing mannequin challenge

2020 all been well.

Is this size carrier about the same tonnage or size as the U.S Nimitz class carrier?

@ThePalaeontologist

8 жыл бұрын

+Justin Correction; the HMS Queen Elizabeth is more like 72,000 tonnes.

@ThePalaeontologist

8 жыл бұрын

***** Sigh, its been the case for months already now. It is around 72,000 tonnes.

itll brake down like there type 45 are fall to bits like there sa80

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

Edith Dodds You have no idea do you. If QE is to ever break down, your English ability will break first which is already has done. *sigh*

"Giant iPads"... you mean TV screens?

3-4 russian sunburn or yakhont missiles and buy buy ship.

@LittleVillage24

8 жыл бұрын

+martinbelmont Is that before or after the several dozen F-35's coming to say hello?

I just wanted to see the sleeping accommodation in depth anyone else

Uncle Furball coughed up a mouthful...

Ships like this for empire.

What a pity those f35b's won't be operational until 2025. They should do med cruises between now and then. It's got a great sundeck😬

I'm surprised it isn't nuclear powered. Were there any salient reasons to make it conventionally powered vs. nuclear power? Anyway, I'm glad to see Great Britain is taking its defense and its NATO commitments seriously.

Is everything named Elizabeth

The band of signals blandford

I wonder if there are advantages to powering a carrier with thorium-based reactors.

@kuhaku9587

8 жыл бұрын

+NaziGOPBallmer Make the ennemy wonder if they really want to sink it and make an environmental disaster.

@NaziGOPBallmer

8 жыл бұрын

Kuhaku But the same would apply with active nuclear carriers at the moment, both the American 11 carriers, and the French's one carrier, let alone nuclear subs.

@kuhaku9587

8 жыл бұрын

NaziGOPBallmer Of course it apply to them too, Not sure a leaking reactor in the sea is something people want, but hey... they made it for combat vehicles and at some point if there is a war, they will have to be destroyed by the ennemy and the ennemy ships will have to be destroyed.

@krashd

8 жыл бұрын

+NaziGOPBallmer Any reactor on a surface ship is foolish, a submarine has 200 meters of the best shielding you can find, water. A surface vessel however is just begging for a tactical nuke to be detonated near it. Against a sand nation all aircraft carriers are useful, but if the unlikely happens against Russia you will see the US and France pull their carriers away from harm.

@kuhaku9587

8 жыл бұрын

Rob Fraser The thing is that even a nuclear submarine can be taken out, which would contaminate the sea.

and now today ive learned that there is a third aircraft carrier to be built the princess diana with catapults this time now does anybody think that we should put the super hornets on this one or its been suggested a carrier version of the typhoon any ideas--------

@tesstickle7267

8 жыл бұрын

nope. it was just some sad facebook page making up rubbish.. would have been nice though

So the British currently have no active carrier and haven't had one since the HMS Illustrious was retired in 2014? And the Queen Elizabeth II and F-35B aircraft will not be officially ready until about 2018? So there is a four year gap that the UK has no aircraft carrier? That seems like horrible planning by the Ministry of Defence. Was the HMS Illustrious and Harriers that bad that they had to retire them before the Queen Elizabeth II was even up and running?

@Benjd0

7 жыл бұрын

All just cost cutting by the government as part of the Defence review in 2010. The Harriers were sold in 2010 and HMS Ark Royal was scrapped in 2011 (It was meant to be in service until this year). So they were left with HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean as helicopter carriers. They wanted to scrap one and keep whichever was best for that role, so HMS Ocean took over from HMS Illustrious until HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service.

@guldarheel1204

7 жыл бұрын

I'm saying as far as strategic strike capability. The ability to strike in conventional warfare anywhere around the world. Those carrier based strike aircraft have come in handy before and helicopters just wont do it.

nice

People here talking US Vs UK Soldiers/Ships anything. Well if I know one thing its that the US has the best army in the whole world in strength and in technological advancements. They comparing Ford vs Elizabeth class. Well first of the GRF Class carriers are bigger and carry more aircraft they are also outfitted with nuclear engines. And have a very manageable layout. Second QE Class carriers would be nothing without its aircraft. We are talking about the F-35 which are made in the US. Lets stop debating here your brits. And accept that the yanks just have the better military or should I say best.

Still think that tying yourself to one aircraft type is dumb. Maybe there's a decent upgrade to the F35B in the pipeline

1:25.. is that windows XP in 2015 on a warship...

Since when has the BBC recorded in 1080i? It's hideous.

@guiltseeker

8 жыл бұрын

+Matthew Morris I Know, i went to 720P, and it's fine!

I wonder how many planes it will ever carry.

@Chickenworm9394

7 жыл бұрын

Some 40 of them

Still no jet propulsion. Yikes.

She great! But she should have been given catapults!!!

Impressive of course... Nothing compared to the top-of-the-line super ships produced by the United States. For example, the Nimitz class carriers aren't powered by diesel, but by twin nuclear reactors that can run for 20 years.

@Xenome101

7 жыл бұрын

We don't care

@Bloke-98

7 жыл бұрын

We don't really have the money for that. Just enough to make us a 'sort-of-almost-nearly a superpower'

@BlueonGoldZ

7 жыл бұрын

Technically, the U.S. doesn't have the money for it either. LOL

@saihein3980

6 жыл бұрын

Toph Beifong dumbass English ppl leave wrost comments

@eagleflies9515

6 жыл бұрын

SaiHein Nice grammar and social views, you're definitely going to get far in life. Fuck off.

They'll be waiting a while for those F-35B's...hahahaha

@xPUR3xSHOTZx

8 жыл бұрын

Well we've already got a few

@CockpumpVideo

8 жыл бұрын

Russell What I mean is it will be a long time before there is a carrier air wing flying from these carriers

@xPUR3xSHOTZx

8 жыл бұрын

CockpumpVideo should be available at the end of 2017

@CockpumpVideo

8 жыл бұрын

Russell nope

@CockpumpVideo

8 жыл бұрын

They are still saying IOC end 2018...not a hope really...I would think IOC maybe 2021 or 2022...maybe?

But its not build yet so there might be build something bigger before its finished

@SuperCompany007

8 жыл бұрын

+Leslie Chow The USS Nimitz is bigger. They probably only care about how it is the biggest ship of the Royal Navy.

@TheAtomicCARROT1000

8 жыл бұрын

+Leslie Chow No there wont, at least not British anyway.

a British aircraft carrier didn't see that coming.

With a tug behind him from Zanzibar........................must have got lost.

kirov

They use XP !!!

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

Alexey Zakhvatov The carrier doesn't run on XP. It was rumoured that it does but it doesn't. While many on board systems used by contractors for various tasks use Windows XP, Windows 7 and various other operating systems, none of these are directly involved in running the vessel and will not be present when the ship enters operation service according to the Ministry of Defence. The new carriers are the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the rest of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next 10 years. Shared Infrastructure is a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs. "The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational, this also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.”

Cute little carrier.

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

That supposed to be an insult?

@mrtron1850

7 жыл бұрын

More like good-natured ribbing. It certainly looks like it's going to be a fantastic ship, just not as big as US carriers.

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

MrTron 2nd biggest carriers in the world - built to a superior specification and more intelligent design layout, actually, with by far more cost effective construction too, than those overpriced, way beyond schedule, US carriers - from the 5th richest country with the 5th most powerful military (though the best trained and most professional one in the world, is the British military) isn't bad at all. Yes the US carriers are bigger, but a fair bit of that is deliberate show-off construction needing to be bigger than everyone else. Britain probably could build equally large carriers, but decided not to for various logical reasons. Ask yourself this; if the UK can build a 280 metre long supercarrier, weighing 72,500 tonnes (with many weight reducing intelligent naval architecture designs) and man it with just 650 men because it is built to be more efficient than any other carrier in the world, then is it really a huge leap to build something a fraction bigger? e.g., Ford-class sized? No, it really isn't impossible, and yes the British really could. It would just require a relatively marginal increase in funds and more fighters to justify it. Currently, the UK government is at last being made by those within it who know better, to spend 2% GDP. Sadly, for over three decades, even during war times, the British haven't even paid the 2% GDP which NATO asks of its members, on Defence spending. We in 2015-16, hovered around 1.5-1.6% We are little better than this right now, as we head into 2017. However, the head of Defence Ministry, Defence Secretary MP Michael Fallon, has put in place incremental budget increases across the board of the British military - this will take us to 2% GDP spending by the year 2020. Thankfully, this seemingly small increase will make the difference of literally billions of pounds worth of military spending. It will take us from spending around 32 billion pounds per year, to over 40 billion pounds. The difference of 55 billion dollars and more like well over 70 billion dollars. I look forward to this. Even though spending less than the 2% GDP per year, for ages, and the British political establishment being infested and nearly overrun with remainers and defeatists who want some weird socialist utopia with decreasing military spending, a few in high places thankfully, thank god and common sense, have managed to wrestle the rights to increased spending from the den of snakes surrounding them. I lament British politics as it stands. While far older and definitely wiser than any US politics, its so far the other way its starting to become something it shouldn't; so addled with far-leftist morons that it is losing sight of the woods for the trees, so to speak. We should lock 2% GDP spending as a parliament upheld law. No less, and hopefully more. I believe we should spend 2.5% but that is my opinion. With this, we'd be able to have double the supercarriers, double the fighters, double the tanks, double the number of our world class elite destroyers, expansion of our unrivaled special forces...so many things which sheeple don't understand.

@mrtron1850

7 жыл бұрын

US carriers are bigger so they can carry far more aircraft. Over 75 for the new Gerald R. Ford-class US carriers compared to just 40 for the new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers.

@ThePalaeontologist

7 жыл бұрын

MrTron Pointless reply. I'm well aware of this, but the QE-class can actually carry 72 aircraft each. We've just currently ordered less than the full capacity - and there are two important things which probably make this a very wise decision: 1. The F-35B ''Lightning II'' (Lightning II is the British name addition to the F-35B, for the ones we'll get, I think in honour of the classic ''English Electric Lightning'', a superlative aircraft of its era) is deeply controversial, with huge sums of US and international investment money pouring into the project, and the situation is that frankly, we are left with a somewhat underwhelming aircraft, for all the hype, and yet on the other hand, a hugely exaggerated array of criticism exists now for the F-35 (all variants) This marks a lack of confidence in our own technology - even though, underwhelming or not, the F-35 would *annihilate* most other aircraft with no problems. The hype on both sides of the argument for well over a decade, has been intense. Those who love it, those who hate it. End of the day, erring on the side of caution and ordering a modest number, yet a decent enough number to nicely man the carriers, is totally understandable. Remember also, that our weak and deeply unpopular governments, have constantly given our own Defence Ministry a nightmare of a time to acquire the permissions and funds to gain more aircraft. They ''cock-block'' our our military planners constantly. It is just a huge betrayal which has been going on. Finally things seem to be turning around in the right way. The politicians hamstringed our armed forces and been trying to castrate ourselves under the noses of our own allies. Have some sympathy for those who know better in my country, who have to fight hard for *any military funding whatsoever*. Its a disgrace, but as I explained, the consolation is that a least by 2020 (at least, as far as they promise) we'll have 2% GDP spending. This is vital; if we had that kind of funding now, we'd be able to have double the aircraft and carriers etc Just have a little understanding for the nightmare the good folks over here have to battle through, against the far-leftists like Corbyn (just so you know, this guy wants to disband the British Army, he has no respect and is a socialist nutcase) 2. These QE-class British supercarriers have 50 year service lifespans planned; therefore expect new models of aircraft, in new abundance, to be installed. In fact, the modular layout of the interior of these hyper-advanced British warships, is purposefully, deliberately designed to be upgraded with ease. Entire console suites and furnishings, control panels, electrical installations and other such structural things, are made to be replaced in sections.

you'd think they'd use nuclear power.

@jamesalders896

7 жыл бұрын

+callum barbra no its not

@TJkiwiOWEG

7 жыл бұрын

callum barbra so dangerous that most of the US navy uses it?

@SKIBOOSH1

7 жыл бұрын

That's what you get with this current government always making budget cuts and now they don't even have enough sailors for all there ships

So this shit doesn't have nuclear power? fucking gas and diesel engines? god.......

@Thorovain

8 жыл бұрын

+Gatis Ločmelis Still has a range of some 10,000 km

@HMSDaring1

8 жыл бұрын

+Gatis Ločmelis Yeah, a little pathetic really, but thats a result of tight cheap governments and the economic crisis didn't help much either :/

@dudarsky

8 жыл бұрын

***** Nuclear carriers can run for 20 years without the need to refuel how is that less efficient than gas and diesel engines that will need to get refueled constantly If an actual conflict would arise, do you think that subs wouldn't just try and snipe the fuel supply ships? Not to mention that you would need to have more ships supplying the carrier with fuel, since it needs fuel to run itself and fuel for the jets.

@HMSDaring1

8 жыл бұрын

Gatis Ločmelis Yeah, I'd have to agree with you here with the nuclear. It is better, but nuclear warships also have some risks as well. It's definitely a requirement for the french and US carriers to have nuclear, so they can power the steam catapults. Especially a ship with 68000 tonne displacement, it should have nuclear.

@dudarsky

8 жыл бұрын

***** Carriers provide a global presence at any place on the globe, although USA has bases in almost all the nations, you would still have to then fly soldiers and planes to location X, and they wouldn't be as flexible.

Really cool design. the two islands looks great. rule Britannia.

The largest warship ever built…for the Royal Navy.

@REDNBLUEBROS1337

8 жыл бұрын

And the second largest in the world

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

+REDNBLUEBROS all the american and the charles the gaulle are better. is long but is vstol

@REDNBLUEBROS1337

8 жыл бұрын

kamikaze234 ? I would like to know how you think they are "better"?

@JBlackjackp

7 жыл бұрын

catobar allows more efficient use of deck space more total planes and less space needed for takeoff as well (although this is a russian problem not one with the F-35) allows fully laden planes to take off.

Something doesn't seem right about that steering wheel? Looks like there should be a joystick next to it? Think it would be a good idea to buy a teenager a wheel like that for their Xbox for Christmas ?

@RJM1011

8 жыл бұрын

+Phil Dobson The joystick could be for the pods ??

Shame Fallon and his mates tried to cancel their construction as soon as they took office!

For those complaining about the lack of nuclear power, blame the *S T R O N G A N D S T A B L E E C O N O M Y*

A city the size of Swindon? He could've actually come up with a city the size of Swindon, rather than name Swindon, which is a town!!!

@kelvinfoote9897

8 жыл бұрын

+RealVilla1 You're right- he should have just said a town the size of Swindon, but probably didn't feel this sounded so impressive. Unfortunately, the closest UK city in population size to Swindon is Aberdeen, which has about 12.000 more people .

@Tomartyr

8 жыл бұрын

+Kelvin Foote Because you always impress people when you compare things to Swindon.

@krashd

8 жыл бұрын

+Kelvin Foote I probably would have went with "two Hemel Hempsteads" or "a handful of Aberystwyths". Just to be clear.

@kelvinfoote9897

8 жыл бұрын

+Rob Fraser How about a clutch of Colchesters, or a flange of Farnboroughs? - .......Enough already.

Glad the British are investing in the future,wish they had used nuclear propulsion...I would assume cost was limiting...

@immortallvulture

6 жыл бұрын

it just wasn't necessary for what the carrier will be doing. nuclear reactors need a lot of very experienced engineers and cost a lot of money to build and fuel. plus the ship needs constant resupplies of food, munitions and aviation fuel so a nuclear reactor is a lot of cost for no real gain

Another of New Labours lunatic schemes. Invincible class were a manageable size, should have gone with an update of that class. A Harrier development would at the same time have cost a fraction of the inadequate Joint Strike Fighter!!

@rickyt1769

8 жыл бұрын

I assume you're joke

@TheAtomicCARROT1000

8 жыл бұрын

+enyha ...What?

Use this to take Hong Kong back.

@user-yb1uk3nn8p

7 жыл бұрын

Erk This is a joke right? Hong Kong is in good hand now.

@yoyo8634

7 жыл бұрын

dumbass

Nice big ship & no one to serve in it.

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

RobertDeville Explain why the carrier is crewed and had its crew two years before she sailed?

And they name it after there Queen quite Imperialistic I must say?

@goatculler

8 жыл бұрын

LightningPete exactly true Imperialism!

@WannabeMarsanach

8 жыл бұрын

What's wrong with the _Royal Navy_ naming a ship after the current Monarch?

@solstice1962

8 жыл бұрын

It's named for a First World War battleship.

@goatculler

8 жыл бұрын

solstice1962 WW1 marketed as the War to end all Wars? more like to make more Wars. 5 of my family went only 1 came home to NZ this will never happen again. It was the start of the Zionists creating a state with the British giving them Palestine which they had no right to do so, WW2 sealed the dirty Zionist deal with Britain.

@gobberz3228

8 жыл бұрын

Not the current one anyway (Elizabeth 1st)

They will be shaking in their sandals in Afghanistan.

4 Are Diesel And 2 are Nuclear.

@RJM1011

8 жыл бұрын

+Fastdude 211 NO nuclear on the two ships !

Ikinci Derece savas Durumu.

Wow, I thought the Brits were out of the aircraft carrier business.

@devoyinator

8 жыл бұрын

+politicalsheepdog Not quite yet. And she has a sister ship the same tonnage, too. HMS Prince of Wales.

@politicalsheepdog

8 жыл бұрын

A 100 Five this Where This I think that's great.

@devoyinator

8 жыл бұрын

politicalsheepdog Could be worse

@Peterat25Manners

8 жыл бұрын

So we were, until we tried to intervene without one. For the Falklands/Malvinas, PNG Este, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya. So many places were Britain "should not Interfere" and "must not Abandon the helpless".

@Delogros

7 жыл бұрын

Americans are currently the problem, as I understand the first CAG of F35's won't be available for the fleet air arm to start training for carrier duties until 2 years after the first ship is completed and it takes a long long time to train pilots for carrier duties... Don't expect to see her operational till 2020 but will be nice to feel like we can pull our weight in a coalition naval task force.

Nothing against the dreadnought. The ship that made you hand over your country seeing it on your horizon

umm no jets for a few years, how silly of the MOD but I have a solution paper planes that's the ticket.

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

m scott “No jets for a few years”, although in less than four weeks the first ever F35B to land on a carrier will be on QE.

The British Navy isn't anything like what it used to be. Both Quantitatively and qualitatively The Brits have been surpassed by Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, and of course the United States. Ship for Ship The British Navy is probably the 5th or 6th most capable in the world, but recent budget cuts in the UK had a huge impact on the size of its military overall, particularly its Navy. The Queen Elizabeth coupled with 20 or 30 F 35's per ship will give the UK some global reach but it isn't anything close to the capabilities of a Nimitz Class Carrier, which carries nearly triple the number of fighters and can remain at sea indefinitely, and the US has 12 of them, plus 8 Amphibs that are equal to or greater in size to the Queen Elizabeth. Technologically The British Navy is still world class. British Type 45 Destroyers are among the best but quantitatively they need to step their game up and increase their defense budget or they risk becoming obsolete on the world stage.

@1977Yakko

8 жыл бұрын

+rastabg23 I just wish there was something better for its flight deck than F-35s. That plane is a very expensive jack of all trades and master of none IMO.

@rastabg23

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Kunkle Critics said the same about the F15. Many said the program was a waste. When the F15 was battle tested in combat it secured its position as the greatest dog fighter in history. Multi billion dollar major weapons acquisition programs are always politicized and highly criticized. Much of what we've heard about the F35 has been hearsay. To date about 30 F35's have been produced. We should allow the F35 to prove itself in combat before coming to conclusions about its performance.

@DrewLovesUK

8 жыл бұрын

Most of your facts are wrong for example the US has 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers not 12, even if you include the New Gerald R Ford class there aren't 12. Also the amphibious assault ships aren't bigger than the HMS QE, the US ships are 40,000t the QE is 70,000t+. I agree that the size of the Royal Navy is not adequate and has been reduced too far however I completely reject that we've been overtaken qualitatively, our ships are on par with any other countries in the world technologically. The QE Class has more than enough aircraft to operate successfully, although not as many as the Nimitz or Ford classes it has as many as any of the rest of the worlds carriers if not more.

@secularataturkist4674

8 жыл бұрын

+Drew M Yes I agree. Also, I blame our current government for the military cuts, but UKIP promised that once we do leave the EU, our military would be way bigger than it already is and therefore we would reclaim our superpower status (we are currently a world power). Also, UKIP said that they would buy 3 aircraft carriers, with 2 currently under construction that would mean we would have 5, which would be the 2nd largest fleet in the world. We could however have 10 if we wanted too. So in a nutshell, the Royal navy would be one of the largest navies in the world, and ofcourse the other branches of the army.

@JckSwan

8 жыл бұрын

Speaking as an admirer of the Royal Navy, why the hell would we need 5 carriers? There's a difference between properly funding the sort of military we need and just being profligate with the scant resources available to us. I would support building an extra 2 T45s, replacing HMS Ocean with a like-for-like vessel and fully funding the construction of the 13 frigates this government has promised to build but hasn't yet actually committed to in signed contracts. A modest increase in defence spending - to perhaps 2.5% - would make all this achievable.

Why is the wheel so small ? How are u a captain if ur wheel is the size of a pixies arse

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

henry hurst Wheel doesn’t need to be any bigger, the vast majority of the time the captain was pilot the vessel.

im british and im sick of us naming everything after the queen

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

some yellow sri lankan The carrier isn’t named after the Queen, google the name and you’ll see it isn’t. Also, being British has no bearing on wether you like the name or not.

hello english people, sorry i am french man but my grandson is full french can he join royal navy? he say he want to "betray his platoon while on expedition" but I'm not supposed to tell anyone. anyway he is allowed? he is quite chubby because of all the baguettes and boeuf bourguignon he get from his mother and he wonder if he should start hitting gym to become strong like Charles de Gaulle.

@northman585

7 жыл бұрын

No need to apollogise for being french old boy!

@bradleyfisher9814

7 жыл бұрын

of course, we could use more recruits

God save the Queen

Windows xp for the win!

This is not the first RN ship with its own bakery, he needs to research better

@sterrissar

8 жыл бұрын

+Charlie Peace agree there

Not nuclear powered? short sighted!

@Benjd0

8 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Waddell The opposite if anything, even if it's not all that often nuclear power means long maintenance periods where the carrier is out of action to refuel. France is left without a carrier for 15 months every 7 years because of it. Nuclear power is great if you have plenty of carriers as backup, but with 1 or 2 you're probably better off with conventional power. You still need tankers for its escorts and the aircraft that fly off it, so it's not a big stretch to carry fuel for the carrier itself.

@rickyt1769

8 жыл бұрын

Kevin it's a travesty that the ministry of defence didn't think of this before you

hasn't got any planes lol

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

Dave James Bullshit, absolute bollocks.

Waste of fucking money, the Carrier doesn't even have the range to get from England to China. That is why the Carrier should be Nuclear powered, the Carrier was out of date as soon as they started construction!

@1chish

8 жыл бұрын

+Stahl's Game's And Strategy Oh wait ... you mean they run out of fuel halfway there? And stop? OMG really? DON'T PANIC..... Forgive me but maybe if you know nothing about a subject its best to keep quiet. I am guessing you have never heard of RAS (Refuelling At Sea)? That even Nuclear Powered carriers have to have their crews, aircraft and munitions 'refuelled'? That the other ships in a Carrier Group are not nuclear powered and have to be 'refuelled'? That we have just bought a new fleet of tankers just for the job? That even the USA estimated even in 1993 it cost them $39.1 Million A YEAR more to run a Nuclear Powered carrier than a conventional one? That this country that invented carriers, launched the first one, developed all the major technologies for carriers knows a thing or two about them? That this country decided in the '60s there is NO strategic or Tactical advantage in having Nuclear Powered carriers. Subs yes .... That we build a new carrier for less than the USA spends refuelling and decommissioning one of theirs? Oh wait again ... yes they do actually refuel a nuclear powered carrier and it takes about 6 years and costs $ millions. That we built our two carriers for about 70% the cost of the new US Ford Class carrier? So yeah that was a nice rant from you but you just made yourself look pretty daft .... Just saying like.

@stahl1624

8 жыл бұрын

Please, do not start, I know more than you about the development with MOD than you could possibly ever know, seeing as how it is my job.

@1chish

8 жыл бұрын

Stahl's Game's And Strategy Yes of course you do ......

@tanyard

8 жыл бұрын

Hahaha, "England to China"... Why do they need to sail to China? If they ever needed to, they have supply/replenishment ships and overseas/allied naval basses they can also use. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has 7 primary large supply/replenishment vessels, with 4 brand new ones being built Why do people think that nuclear power is the only way? You do realise that even nuclear powered carriers have to be refueled with food, water, munitions, etc on a regular basis, so at the same time they can just refuel these carriers with fuel. Just like what they do with all frigates, destroyers and other vessels. You do also realise that nuclear powered carriers take at least 12 months, sometimes upwards of 18-24 months to fully refuel... And with the UK building 2 for now, it needs to have both fully active at once, while one is deployed and the other gets ready to deploy when the currently deployed one comes back into port. "The carrier was out of date as soon as they started construction"... Seriously. The 2 carriers will be the most modern and sophisticated vessels the UK has ever operated, even the French backed out of their plan for 2 new super carriers. The only carriers that can compare wit the QE class are the US Nimitz and future G.R. Ford class, nothing else. Only the UK and US are building brand new state of the art super carriers. If you want "out of date" then look at Russia's old rusting Soviet-era carrier that breaks down so much that it always deploys with a tug boat and repair ship! or India's 70 year old WW2 era carrier with a low sortie rate, and about 12 ancient 30 year old Harriers to use on... 80% of the worlds nations can't build or afford these types of vessels and the gear they have, 15% can only dream and only the small 5% can actually do it. You really don't seem to have a single clue of the intelligence, planning, and thought that they have put into this... These aren't just typical "light escort carriers", they are the largest the UK has ever built and operated, second largest after US carriers, will house a crew of over 600 (accommodation for up to 1,600), will operate modern and some brand new aircraft like the F-35, Chinook, Merlin, armed Drones, etc, use long range modern radar and sensors, and even have their own damage containment system... These a simply all round "mother ships" that can pack their own small air force and army (40 aircraft or 50 aircraft if need be maxed out, and up to 900 marines, excluding it's own crew) that will serve the UK and it's allies/NATO partners over the next 30+ years. Your probably the sort that believes every single little poorly researched Daily Mail article, and loves to slate everything in the comments section. Do some research and get with it.

@1chish

8 жыл бұрын

King Tanyard I think that just about covers it ....

1:28 Royal Navy is still using Windows XP. Shame!!

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

hahaha why not a catobar? is stupid made a svtol for not spend too much and buy the super spensive f 35, and made 2 carriers of 60000 tons. the french carrier much better planified.

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

+Monster LMA xDDDDDD catobar planes use less fuel, are cheaper and can have more kg of weapons. all people knows that royal navy use the vstol for money. its fine, but why do you say that stupid things? the use navy use the catobar because they are better. the f35b has bigger wings too to the short take offs and that rest agility

@Delogros

7 жыл бұрын

nope, what normally happens is that the software is dated from the initial start of the project, so when a ship is completed the software tends to be (on big ships) about a decade out of date. Once its completed the software and whatnot is then updated to current standards. Its to difficult to update that level and amount of software requirments as you go along on a ship that is not completed so you can't test it easily as you go along and you can't update areas that are not built yet. Liklihood is you will have 100 differnt versions on differnt terminals on the ship by the time your done, much better to just do it the once at the end of construction... Not to mention insanly cheaper.

@gatolocoverga152

7 жыл бұрын

it is a workstaton idiot.

@kuyagav_5703

4 жыл бұрын

Windows XP for military use dude.......and more reliable than latest windows in the market....Microsoft update it regularly for navy... Don't underestimate it dude...

Windows XP :-D

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

4TheRecord The carrier doesn't run on XP. It was rumoured that it does but it doesn't. While many on board systems used by contractors for various tasks use Windows XP, Windows 7 and various other operating systems, none of these are directly involved in running the vessel and will not be present when the ship enters operation service according to the Ministry of Defence. The new carriers are the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the rest of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next 10 years. Shared Infrastructure is a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs. "The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational, this also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.”

Why is it NOT nuclear powered?

@Drizit13

8 жыл бұрын

because you still need to re supply with food and water and empty waste and 70 % of the world does not allow docking of nuclear ships. hence ehy the usa are so attached to south korea because no other country will let thrm re supply in that region

@Emil-ul4kb

8 жыл бұрын

+Andy Ashcroft Good answer Andy.

@Emil-ul4kb

8 жыл бұрын

Makes sense.

@WalterModel45

8 жыл бұрын

because money

I heard that spitfires will adorn the flight deck because they spent all the money on outdated computers. Maybe they can sell the second one get some cash and get a few jump jets back out of the museum. What's even more troubling is that women will be allowed to steer it !

@simonhool3073

5 жыл бұрын

Soothing Sounds “Outdated computers”, please explain. Second of all, you don’t know what the F35B is? You know we own around 15, 9 of which are in the UK with 48 ordered and paid for. There is a good chance this number is being increased to roughly 150 too. In less than one months time the first ever F35B will land on the carrier. Lastly, women can pilot vessels no differently to women.

Just waste of money before you know it you're in debt.