Check out Paperlike at paperlike.com/megaprojects. Thank you Paperlike for sponsoring this video.

@drunkentriloquist9993

2 ай бұрын

Rds mdp, knots robocops and the hard work.... please continue

@noneyabusiness2237

2 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/h5uGupaappvYf7g.html

@ADB-zf5zr

2 ай бұрын

This overview video becomes a farce when you talk about the financial side of this topic, but you entirely fail to put these costs into perspective. You also quote the "Joseph Rowntree Foundation" which is objectively Socialist, and give no counterbalance, which clearly shows the political slant of this channel and helps no-one. I have unsubscribed. Bye...

@brandongaines1731

2 ай бұрын

Paperlike Screen Protector DOES look perfect - now release it for the High-End Samsung Galaxy smartphones that come with a built-in stylus, and I might actually consider spending the extra money! Edit: by "extra money," I mean for the phone ;-)

@squirepraggerstope3591

2 ай бұрын

@@ADB-zf5zr Well said. Though in truth it's just an obvious, routine propaganda vid of the type and orientation you can enjoy on any of the palpably partisan channels this wee man fronts. So what better can one really expect? The aforementioned channels are, after all, only gearing their output to the gross extant prejudices of their majority following which, let's face it, is comprised of woke-cult-indoctrinated "barely" adults blessed by having been fed/still being fed contemporary Anglosphere educational establishments' ever-increasingly PC-compliant "offerings".🤣🤣

Shall I cheer you up with stories of Canadian military procurement?

@DMS-pq8

2 ай бұрын

Canada has a military???

@timcranston9346

2 ай бұрын

I’ll pass on the nightmares, thanks for the offer.

@MrLamchp

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for reminding me where my tax dollars are going

@bsqwahlE

2 ай бұрын

How 'bout the US military failing an audit to the tune of 1.5 TRILLION. Don't know where 63% of your corporate assets are? Then, you are the military. Taxpayers are fine w the massive waste, constant failure and incompetence of military leadership.

@simondymond8479

2 ай бұрын

Does Trudeau just give the cheques directly to his mates openly now or does he at least still pretend to be governing Canada for Candadians despite the obvious evidence. Good luck over there. I hope you get your country back from the globalist corporate puppet soon. Better for all of us.

What's really impressive is that the construction of HMS Prince Of Wales actually finished two years before it began

@SandsOfArrakis

2 ай бұрын

Our Dutch engineers need to learn that time saving technique to solve our housing crisis.

@siph06

Ай бұрын

Easy when you remove every high tech and strategic aspects of an Aircraft Carrier. It goes faster. The contrary would be a shame.

@rustumlaattoe

Ай бұрын

And the bartender says, "We don't serve time-travelers here." A time-traveler walks into a bar...

@danielcreveuil

Ай бұрын

😂

@ahmedghost4446

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂

Despite any technical inaccuracies, Simon DOES highlight the factual issue of UK poverty and mismanaged government spending. For that alone, he should be commended

@etpoculasacra

Ай бұрын

The technical criticisms are largely fair though; whereas his statement that the 'UK economy is f*cked' is just bizarre, wrong, and irrelevant. The UK has outperformed Germany since 2010 and is predicted to continue outperforming the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future (IMF predictions 2024 to 2029). That's not US or Chinese levels of growth, but enough to justify a handful of aircraft carriers -- it's all about what you choose to spend money on. It would be odd to say we can afford to blow £150 billion on the pandemic, or £153 billion per year on the NHS, but apparently £9 billion on a key aspect of national defence, lasting 50 years or more, is too much. This kind of low-resolution analysis is what causes journalists with only a superficial understanding of national expenditure to claim that the UK 'can't afford' virtually anything expected of a first-tier power; it's a serious misapprehension of the nation's true capabilities -- and its global responsibilities.

@tonyatthebeach

Ай бұрын

@@etpoculasacra My point was about poverty levels and government misspending both of which are widely recorded in the ONS and national press. Furthermore, it's not 9 billion as a standlone figure, it's 9 billion ON TOP of existing spending and on top of the money lost due to mismanagement. Also I wouldn't describe NHS spending as 'blown', the cost of poor health and long term illness will have a severe impact if left to increase exponentially. As regards growth, that's been the lowest in the G7 and the longer-term outlook is for growth of just 1% this decade. I'd investigate more but have to get back to my second job because my salary hasn't increased in the last 10 years but everything else has

@TheAztecGamer123

Ай бұрын

​@@etpoculasacraWhere are you currently residing? We are facing a severe cost-of-living crisis. Energy companies consistently exploit us, and the privatization of public transport is exacerbating the situation (a flight to Manchester is cheaper than a train journey). Moreover, when did we outshine Europe? Germany has consistently outpaced us; the last time we were close was pre-2008 crash under the Labour government. Regarding the pressing issues of starvation and homelessness, where is the purported surplus? Our national debt has skyrocketed to over £1 trillion in the past 14 years. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, government funds were funnelled to cronies, and a poorly executed track and trace app was developed. Unless you belong to the upper-middle class or the elite, it's challenging to justify any of these actions. This wasteful expenditure could have been postponed until we address the underlying issue of inflated costs due to contractor fees and administrative overheads. Numerous labourer friends of mine attest to the incompetence of management, reflecting in our struggle to complete projects within budget (e.g., the high-speed rail). Finally ah yes our global responsibilities where nobody actually takes us seriously unless the US backs us. Those global responsibilities are defintely helping ensure people are well fed and have decent wages to live on. Honestly I'm not surprised this country is facing a brain drain and the NHS is so understaffed. Why stay here its not even a mere shadow of what it was under labour its more a dark British shaped turd where the predators at the top keep shovelling more shite on.

@liamr194

Ай бұрын

Promoting misguided and incorrect left wing propoaganda shouldn't be commended... Because it's both factually incorrect and misleading. Only days ago, he claimed the Chinese Navy was a new colossus despite having a refurbished casino as it's aircraft carrier and its missile silos having been found to be full of water and inoperable. Facts and accuracy should take the lead not be excused. Having said that, nearly all western governments are a disaster in public sector procurement!

@mongoliandude

Ай бұрын

@@tonyatthebeach Here, here 👏

Re: Maintenance schedules; US CVNs are in regular depot maintenance 36% of their 32 month operational cycles. It's part of the reason the USN maintains a fleet of 11 supercarriers - because at any given time (in crude terms) 4 of these carriers are undergoing depot maintenance, leaving 7 for operations. (It's more complicated than this but that is the bare bones of it.) Having said that, I don't know the details of the PoW''s situation and whether its time in maintenance was scheduled or a reaction to construction cock-ups.

@SerbanOprescu

21 сағат бұрын

Yeah, Derek, I thought the same. A carrier is an immensely complex machine, it's not like you pull it out of the garage and drive it. 33% seems within reason. Fighter jets similarly have their maintenance down time.

My dad worked on the original plan for the HMS Queen Elizabeth. At that point, it was nuclear-powered and had catapults. It was advised to use steam catapults from the US Navy, as the electromagnetic ones weren't working properly yet. Then, it was deemed too expensive, and you got this

@noneyabusiness2237

2 ай бұрын

To Too Two

@adamholland8621

2 ай бұрын

@@noneyabusiness2237 are you happy now mr grammar police

@sheep-go-quack7600

2 ай бұрын

@@noneyabusiness2237 So sew sow.... what wot watt

@si2foo

2 ай бұрын

They should have only built one of them then it would have been enough to have it be nuclear and catapult based. although in all fairness, aircraft carriers are meant more of power projection then anything else. and i would rather have more nuclear submarines

@adamholland8621

2 ай бұрын

@@si2foo that policy was looked at but I think that they said they need at least 2 to maintain a carrier force, similar with the nuclear subs there has to be one doing sub stuff, one doing maintenance and training one I believe. Idk but I know that to have a carrier force 2 were needed

Well.... At least it doesn't need a tugboat all the time.

@polpotnoodle7441

2 ай бұрын

The other one does

@jordanmcdonald3358

2 ай бұрын

Can the Typhoon do the Cobra maneuver? Maybe they could land Typhoons using the Cobra maneuver so that the Americans don't need to supplement the air wing. But wait, then the RAF would be even more knackered for planes... damn. Rock and a hard place 😂

@polpotnoodle7441

2 ай бұрын

@@jordanmcdonald3358 good job we dont have the planes because we wouldnt have enough pilots to fly them😭 🤡🇬🇧

@alexanderkueffler2440

2 ай бұрын

This is my favorite comment. 😂

@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass

2 ай бұрын

Relying? Data from the BAE Replica was helped to make the F-35 it’s part British effectively.

The best use of a military is to prevent a war. Having the carriers might dissuade aggressors from picking a fight with you.

@CorePathway

Ай бұрын

Who? Y’all ain’t got an empire anymore. This was a lot of money to keep the Falklands 😂

@Puzzoozoo

26 күн бұрын

@@CorePathway The Falkland's are islands, just like Hawaii, how much does it cost the US, and the US has more poverty then the UK? 😉

@xornxenophon3652

25 күн бұрын

It really depends on the type of war you expect to fight. If Britain expects a war against Russia in Europe, having a single carrier at the cost of several divisions of infantry seems rather wasteful.

@Sayitlikitiz101

10 күн бұрын

A skinny dog staying out of the way of big dogs is pretty safe, that same dog braking at the big ones will get bitten! The UK cannot afford to flex weak muscle. British politicians are usually quite outspoken about other nations, yet apparently, they don't have much to back their talk.

@fatrick5004

8 күн бұрын

So skinny dogs like Belgium in WW1? Oh and WW2? Maybe you meant Poland in 1939? Or Holland? Bullies ALWAYS target the weak so staying out of the way has never worked. The only thing that stops aggression is fear of getting your rear handed to you.​@@Sayitlikitiz101

Sorry dude, I don’t know where you get some of your facts from, but the F35 B variant is the STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) variant and the F35 C variant is the one that requires catapults and traps. We bought the B hence why we don’t need catapults on the carriers. The C variant cannot vertically land. The squadrons of F35’s that the UK has are jointly operated by RAF and RN personnel, meaning that both RAF and RN personnel are on the same squadrons. They don’t get passed over between the RAF and RN because the squadrons are jointly manned by both services.

@Ylyrra

21 күн бұрын

Plus there's a pretty good argument that if you're going to spend that much money on an aircraft, you're better off making sure it's getting utilized, rather than sitting in a hangar because you're hung up on what branch gets to use it.

16:31 the F35-C is not a VTOL aircraft. The C variant is designed only for catapult assisted takeoff whereas the F35-B model is capable of both VTOL and STOVL depending on payload.

@guypalmer3846

2 ай бұрын

One of many inaccurate details in this video 😴

@stuka101

2 ай бұрын

@@guypalmer3846 Ye this bloke must get his info off wish, half his videos are pathetic...I dont think he even research just copys and paste first thing he finds on a subject.

@deanstephens2876

2 ай бұрын

Inaccurate crap, get your facts right.

@hybrid9mm

2 ай бұрын

@@deanstephens2876 To quote. “The F- 35 is the Air Force version; a standard fighter. The B model is the Marine vertical takeoff version. The C model has larger wings, more robust landing gear and stronger tailhooks for carrier ops.” All you had to do was use google but you went with 🤡 well done.

@bobg1069

2 ай бұрын

The word with my friend in the RAF, flying the F35, is that it can indeed take off vertically, provided the pilot weighs less than 50kg and has missed all his meals for the last two days, and doesnt need the toilet, and it only carries a milk bottle of fuel in its tanks and it takes off all of the weapons. I wonder if he is exaggerating? He sounded quite serious, and just a bit angry, as he had the self same issue with the Harrier.

As an old First Sargeant once told me. "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over!"

@cleverusername9369

2 ай бұрын

Um, did you mean Sergeant?

@dogsbecute

2 ай бұрын

Ah....guess no matter the country, your seargant will always remember the foxhole is actually supposed to be 5 meters to the left after yall just finished digging it.

@indyguy04

2 ай бұрын

That's the most government budget thing I've ever heard.

@chrislong3938

2 ай бұрын

@@cleverusername9369 Yeah... I would have corrected it but didn't have time.;-)

@chrislong3938

2 ай бұрын

@@dogsbecute Butter bars mostly...

I think that you hit the nail on the head with the comment about the "interesting" way that the economy was managed. The UK once led the world in shipbuilding, yet this is just one of the many British industries that have been sacrificed under this incompetent, dogmatic regime of bankers and lawyers who have forgotten that in order to spend money, one has to earn it. The London Establishment are more concerned with honours for cash than actually being honourable. Guy Fawkes- Where are you now that we actually need you?

@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp

Ай бұрын

Well said, many people outside the plusher areas seem to have forgotten that large areas of the country were in a bad way by the end of the 90s. The media forced Blair and Brown to accept continued neoliberal economics so they let the City spivs continue their casino operations and it all went t-ts up in 2008. But rather than the normal rules of capitalism applying to them like they do to the rest of us - we doubled the national debt to bail out their imploded paper wealth. Since then the Tories have ensured that a veritable funnel of money has kept gushing up to a tiny few while everyone else gets steadily poorer. Of course their response to this is to blame everyone else but themselves - people on benefits, pensioners etc etc It's absolutely sickening

@paulgibbons2320

Ай бұрын

Very good comment.

@robthomas3538

26 күн бұрын

No there gone Woke!!!

@paulgibbons2320

26 күн бұрын

@robthomas3538 woke is just trolling decent people.

@paulgibbons2320

26 күн бұрын

@robthomas3538 it's the wickedness causing the problem, not the woke.

As someone currently serving on HMS Queen Elizabeth... This guy is nuts haha.

@DarkSygil666

Ай бұрын

Spill the beans!

@RogerPalmer-pi9yb

Ай бұрын

He is a complete clown knows nothing about these carriers. He needs a hair piece.

@user-kc1tf7zm3b

Ай бұрын

The UK just cannot afford an out and out aircraft carrier fleet. For starters, the RN needs 3 carriers to ensure that operations, training and maintenance can occur concurrently, with at least one carrier available for combat operations. Moreover, at least 2 carriers would need to have their full complement of F-35 Lightning IIs to be purchased and entered into service, so that effective air combat operations can proceed. Especially if 2 carriers are undertaking operations simultaneously. Aircraft carriers are bloody expensive, so this explains why only the United States and China has can pursue their carrier endeavours seriously. The US Navy has 11 carriers.

@dudeonyoutube

Ай бұрын

I heard the other week that the PoW might be up for sale as the RN can't afford nor crew both.

@RogerPalmer-pi9yb

Ай бұрын

@@dudeonyoutube from who? The MOD has denied those speculations. The Australians can’t find sailors for their subs or surface vessels. They couldn’t manage a carrier.

Part of the problem with UK Military procurement is contracts. Some 10 years ago, in Afghanistan I asked, why we used such terrible Wi-Fi antennas on the routers. (To give you an idea just how bad they were, in some situations we replaced them with cheapo metal coat hangers, bent into shape & stuffed into the port and got better performance.) The answer was, we had an exclusive contract with the manufacture. I'm sure at the time of signing said contract it was great, they probably got a load for free which at the time were better than others on the market... fast forward to 2014, and they were terrible by comparison and the UK was paying £12,000 for each! £12,000 for something worse than a coat hanger! But due to the contract, they weren't allowed to buy Wi-Fi antennas elsewhere! (I sincerely hope the contract has expired by now.)

@AaronGuilbert-nw3ge

Ай бұрын

when they built the French pentagon "the balard hexagon" the electrical sockets were charged 10k€ per room, it's sockets like at home eh. It seems that like in all the armies of the world some people are lining their pockets in the process...

@Stu1664RM

Ай бұрын

When I was in the Royal Marines 84 to 2005, we bought our own boots, bergens, sleeping bags, bivvi bags, cookers, etc etc for decades. The issued stuff was that shit. I wore a Barbour wax cotton in the field for years lol. It’s always been a scam. Look at the SA80. What a joke that was.

@andrewb2475

Ай бұрын

.............add to this Bowman Radios, military rifles and of course the biggest procurement scandal of them all British Aerospace Nimrod AEW3!

@Stu1664RM

Ай бұрын

@@andrewb2475 spot on. Actually we can also add TRIGAT (uk antitank fire and forget or laser guided, I can’t remember. )And LAW80.

@peterwait641

Ай бұрын

@@andrewb2475 Clansman intercom had less interference than the Bowman system. Cheap die cast aluminium plugs sealed with glue and snap rings instead of old machined ones that unscrewed for repair.

British Military procurement disasters! ? That's got to be worth an episode surely? SA80, Ajax, IVECO Panther, etc etc etc etc

@procatprocat9647

2 ай бұрын

Check all armed forces. The failures are just as common.

@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg

2 ай бұрын

Like an Armoured Light House

@madsteve9

2 ай бұрын

General Dynamics has really f*cked the British Army over. The senior civil servant who quit M.o.D. and went to work for them should be doing serious prison time.

@glynnwright1699

2 ай бұрын

@@procatprocat9647 Indeed, Littoral Combat Ship, Zumwalt Class Destroyer, FARA. All cancelled at a cost of somewhere between $50Bn and $100Bn.

@bobg1069

2 ай бұрын

There is no point in reporting on the ordinary everyday.

Does anyone else get the impression that Simon & his writers enjoy knocking the UK?

@johnchristmas7522

Ай бұрын

It really isn't hard, compare us with any country from the Far East and you will see we are at least a decade behind.

@antonnurwald5700

Ай бұрын

Who doesn't

This is the problem with the media. People like this guy talking about things they have no idea about.

As an American, I consider the Queen Elizabeth Class to be more successful than our littoral classes or the Zumwalt class. Then there's the Russian Kuznetsov.... Relatively speaking, UK isn't doing too bad. Additionally: As for financial prudence, people in the US have been saying the same thing about our Nimitz class for years despite its record. The F35 problem is world wide, especially if said country is waiting for the block 4 version which has constantly been pushed back time wise. Navy procurement... I can't speak to the level of issues, but UK is currently not alone in that area.

@guypalmer3846

2 ай бұрын

Whatever happened to the Russian SU-57 stealth fighter… you’d think we Brit’s were the only ones who’d ever made procurement “blunders” watching this 😂 Took you guys years & billions to work out EMALS, we could never have afforded that, as a happy medium these carriers aren’t too shabby (not to mention they’re fully 5th generation and represent the largest and most powerful operational fleet outside the US

@melgross

2 ай бұрын

The difference is that we (the US) can afford our mistakes and can afford to correct them. With the military budget being what it is, the money can be found. But smaller countries have to do it right the first time.

@jeffconley6366

2 ай бұрын

@@melgross The problem is we can't afford it. That's why our government debt is greater than our yearly GDP.

@shannonhenson609

2 ай бұрын

​@@jeffconley6366Yes....but as long as the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency.....the debt is not that big of an issue.

@MR_Foffe

2 ай бұрын

@@jeffconley6366I'm no economy expert, especially not the US economy, but I have a hard time seeing how US supercarriers, or US military at all is supposed to be the cause of that debt. Every single country in the world is in enormous debt at all times, it's not an US problem, and barely a problem at all at that. Even if the entire US military got sliced off of the budget, the US would just go into debt funding other things. The military is not an outlier in the US debt situation

Mechanical issues are part and parcel of having a new class of ship. The only thing you could maybe fault the MOD on is how well or poorly they revised the design of the Prince of Wales once a deficiency was noted with the Queen Elizabeth.

@TalesOfWar

2 ай бұрын

The MoD can revise all they want, if the treasury says no, it doesn't happen.

@bobg1069

2 ай бұрын

You can fault the MoD in supporting building these white elephants in the first place.

@piccalillipit9211

2 ай бұрын

ITS OBSOLETE get used to it - it needs scraping and we need modern systems to address the 21st century. 2 NUCLEAR CARRIERS AND 100 SUPPORT SHIPS cant keep the Red Sea open to shipping cos 6 guys in sandals bought some drones of Ali Express...

@stunitech

2 ай бұрын

​@TalesOfWar They were only built because the US wanted them built and the UK gov was thinking they'd get some kind of economic bone thrown to them as a result, such as a free trade agreement. In all seriousness this whole thing was scuppered by chlorine washed chicken and cow steroids 😂

@piccalillipit9211

2 ай бұрын

@@stunitech- That might be closer to the truth than people imagine.

"About as useful as a chocolate teapot" the most polite insult ever. 🤣🤣

@VicariousAdventurer

Ай бұрын

Chocolate Teapots could be used for Iced Tea

The music to the conclusion would have been more hilarious if it was a tuba. Really sets the mood

Simon........grrrrr. The F-35C is not STOVL. It is similar to the standard F-35A but designed for CATOBAR, so has stronger landing gear and tail hook. Only the F-35B that we Brits use is STOVL. I can't help thinking that Megaprojects prioritises output over accuracy sometimes.

@gregs7562

2 ай бұрын

Agreed. This videos got lots wrong.

@MrHws5mp

2 ай бұрын

Only sometimes?

@alfiesaunders7410

2 ай бұрын

Facts don’t suit his Anti-U.K agenda.

@moogle68

2 ай бұрын

my God, calm the fuck down. It's just an informational video for people curious about the subject, not an on-site training video for pilots... no one is getting hurt over these mistakes. If you notice a mistake, feel free to correct it in the comments but making a sweeping assumption about the entire channel's priorities because of a single letter being mixed up with another is just ridiculous.

@dannyboyy31

2 ай бұрын

@@moogle68The irony here is just priceless 😂

You say a LOT of outright wrong in this one, but 17:51 is probably the worst. ALL large military vessels are intended to spend 33% of their time in port undergoing maintenance. EVERY SINGLE ONE. 1/3 - Active. 1/3 - Reserve. 1/3 - Up keep. Every NATO military (that I'm aware of) does the [approximate] same thing. Especially given that these things are indented to be in service for 50..80+ years, the first few years are going to involve a lot of bug fixing.

@oisinmtom

2 ай бұрын

Not a brand new aircraft carrier that has barely moved goes under that much maintence.

@Joesolo13

2 ай бұрын

@@oisinmtom If anything brand new vessels undergo more. Sea trials involve discovering all sorts of issues along the way generally.

@pointy_ear

2 ай бұрын

That is quite accurate. Brand new vessels are built to a certain specification, and usually go through a yard period soon after to fit them with updated systems that developed during construction. That is how a shipbuilder frees up space in a yard to start the next project. It happened to the Ford and DeGaulle as well. China is also doing the same maintenance cycles as the west sooooo there's that.

@bengrogan9710

2 ай бұрын

@@oisinmtom How to announce that you have never looked at any new weapon system

@masterglaizer5918

2 ай бұрын

You can do the 1/3 active 1/3 reserve and1/3 maintenance if you have 3. GB gonna have to build another to get to that point.

Everyone thinks aircraft Carriers are a waste UNTIL YOU NEED THEM. Harry S Truman found out in Korea and Margaret Thacher found out in The Falklands. Afterwards no one in the US made that mistake again but Britain forgets.

@oakleaves8370

Ай бұрын

100% this. Everything in Defence spending gets sledged as being a waste until it's actually getting used. And when you do need it you can't just spend more money to make it happen instantly. Aircraft carriers are one of the best force multipliers, in particular with the kind of wars that have been seen in the last 40 years. People that don't want to spend the money aren't the ones to be sent to the front lines for being wrong.

@edwardmclaughlin7935

Ай бұрын

sgeskinner There were no Kinzhal missiles in Korea or the Falklands.

@edwardmclaughlin7935

Ай бұрын

@@oakleaves8370 We're now being pushed into a war that is not at all like any we have seen in the last 40 years. These people, rather unsportingly, fight back very hard.

@edwardmclaughlin7935

28 күн бұрын

@@paulhicks6667 The West are way behind. Kinzhals are hypersonic and can't be stopped. Exocets! Wow they were current in my day and HMS Sheffield and Coventry were supposedly tooled-up to deal with them.

@0utcastAussie

25 күн бұрын

@@paulhicks6667 Not hypersonic missiles. Aircraft Carriers now are simply mobile artificial reefs in waiting.

The thing I like is that PoW is a bit longer than Big Lizzie: they can't even follow blueprints

33% of down time for maintenance and repair is half the expected amount, the problem isn't reliability, its that we have too few of them. With ships, subs and most aircraft you need 3, ideally 4 to gurentee that one is operational at any one time. One is operational, one is in light maintenance, and the third is in deep maintenance.

@1996Horst

Ай бұрын

Two carriers are enough. More are only needed if you expect naval battles, but these are essentially just a mobile airbase expected to not face a nation fielding more than 20 ish modern fighters. Hence why they also did not go for😅defensive missiles...forgetting that those are multi purpose

@dougaldouglas8842

Ай бұрын

We had 3 planned, and I saw the plans in Portsmouth. The third was eventually made to go away, and the other two were to be shared with France, but the French found the electrical units incompatible with theirs. No self-defence systems were proposed, instead the carriers were to be defended by other warships. What a waste of fecking money, and they keep breaking down, and some of the contractors argue over whose fault it is.

@terencefranks1688

Ай бұрын

country can't afford it ..... oh wait - they'll just print more notes !

@dougaldouglas8842

Ай бұрын

@@terencefranks1688 That is what they have been doing in recent years, up until this very day, and it continues. As long as monies printed is not set against the gold bullion standard, there is no debt. This, by the way, began in the First World war, and no debt was incurred. The money makers came along and destroyed everything for their own ends, and so was born the Bank of England

@terencefranks1688

Ай бұрын

@@dougaldouglas8842 yes - exactly - one might refer to it as a "stealth economy"!

A bit unfair on Prince of Wales at the end there. She was on 30 days notice to sail (so in maintenance after conducting trials with UAVs) before being needed to replace QE and given just 7 days to sail. She sailed in 8 days. Also F35C are not vertical take off capable.

The reason why the UK carrier doesn't have AA is because it is being accompanied by a Type 45 specialist AA destroyer. Note US carriers are only accompanied by multi role destroyers. You're not comparing like with like.

The Queen Elizabeth class inherited the wild spirits of their battleship predecessors, who were inexplicably plagued with a multitude of mechanical gremlins from steering difficulties to unexplained weight gains that couldn't be fixed despite 2 complete rebuilds and a host of refits, and yet remained to date the most successful battleships ever built.

Really going for the record of most inaccuracies and mistakes in a video here. Most of this stuff you could have easily found the correct information with just a little extra research.

@zackz7675

2 ай бұрын

It’s hard to take him seriously sometimes, he says so many generic lies that you’d find in a sun newspaper

@ceberskie119

Ай бұрын

Like what?

@gmtom19

Ай бұрын

Thats his style though, just crank out a tonne of poorly researched videos very quickly across multiple channels and flog some screen protectors or other useless tat.

@martinkelsen6049

Ай бұрын

Dick@@zackz7675 and Dick​ @gmtom19 please enlighten us with the "facts". Otherwise what you say is meaningless.

@neilsbs8273

Ай бұрын

Unfortunately people dont want to hear the truth, it doesnt equal clicks. Facts are easy to search and rubbish such as this only goes to feed the uneducated trolls and ruins anyones credibility.

To be fair, the RIM-162 is the evolved Sea Sparrow missile with a range of 27 miles (unclassified), while the RIM-116 is the rolling airframe missile with a range of about 6 miles (unclassified). These are additional point defense weapons, not replacements for the 90+ mile range Standard missiles on the Ford's escorts.

@rubiconnn

2 ай бұрын

Also the CIWS is not a ship's main defense weapon. It's a last ditch, very short range weapon in case all of the other layers of defense fail. If it's actually used to shoot down incoming missiles then it means it's probably too late anyways.

@BabyMakR

2 ай бұрын

Came to say this. If the Ford has to use these, bad things are happening. And if CIWS kicks in, you do not want to be above decks. Even if it does destroy the missile, the shrapnel will be like a sand blaster to anything on deck.

@Sertsch

2 ай бұрын

Also: i tought aircraft carriers always are deployed with fregattes and destroyers etc. as an aircraft carrier group?

@kennethferland5579

2 ай бұрын

Correct, the defence layers are First Escorts, then Carriers missiles, then Carriers CIWS acting as the last line.

@Pushing_Pixels

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, carriers need point defence weapons. The QE Class barely has any, and the Royal Navy barely has enough modern surface ships to escort them. So, they REALLY need them.

So what would you rather have Simon, Sweet FA, and a defenceless nation? see how far you get on your own mate, off you go, here's your rifle and tin hat. chop chop!

“About as much use as a chocolate teapot”. Definitely the most British thing I’ve ever heard and I love it!

The UK needs carriers as it is responsible for the security of 14 territories outside the UK. That can only be done effectively with naval airpower, as was aptly demonstrated during the Falklands campaign.

@melgross

2 ай бұрын

For that you need more than just two carriers.

@TheDanEdwards

2 ай бұрын

The Royal Navy is not going to be an effective global fighting force. 14 territories scattered around the world is not defensible if the UK had to do it themselves. Because the UK is part of NATO there is a backstop should more forces be needed, but do not think the UK of the 21st century is going to be the naval power of the 19th century.

@suntzu94

2 ай бұрын

14 territories 😂😂😂😂 wait till NI and Scotland leave the UKSSR, the Uk is finished and England is the laughing stock of the world 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@RJM1011

2 ай бұрын

@@suntzu94 Who said NI was leaving ?????????? and if Scotland leaves they will have a lot of problems !

@nialpollitt3410

2 ай бұрын

​@@suntzu94 nice bait bro.

Your POW building maths are something Dr Who would be proud of, started in 2019 and taking 8 years to build!!!

Useful things for QE Carrier class: They can be hired, or lent to Canada and Australia, if needed, for them to put their planes onto. And they can supply their planes and pilots, to our aid in emergencies. They boost our national prestige and morale, helping to maintain our stiff upper lips, impress teenagers on glossy recruitment magazines and raise our military’s pyramid, to previously unforeseen, dizzying heights. They’re a central focal point, for our navy, the military as a whole and the entire nation. Purpose to our national identity and what it means to be British. Think British, think Navy. They deter foreign aggression towards our homeland, or allies and friends around the whole world and impose our presence on the global stage. If you have super carriers, you have an ear at all the top diplomatic tables and no one can ignore you. They cement our place on the UN Security Council. You never know when the Argies will have another pop at the Falklands, or something similar elsewhere. They can patrol the global sea lanes and maintain the free navigation of trade. Projecting aerial power deep into potential enemy’s territory. They can be used for launching helicopters, drones, ospreys and a wide range of planes, not just F35s. To condemn them for not having full compliments of F35s, when they’re obviously much more versatile than that, is very silly and childish. They create tens of thousands of jobs, not just in the military, also building, maintenance, shipyard and supply chains, also in technical engineering and R&D. They’re a key stone for the strength of the entire military and the nation. They support and protect all our other ships, airbases and key assets around the world. As they all mutually support and protect the carriers, as well as each other. This also applies to our ally’s militaries. They’re key assets for the entire western alliance and give us a commanding role at the centre of allied coalitions and global security. Lastly, they also help to further education and training, within all the advanced technologies that are incorporated in the systems employed by the carriers and both the RN and RAF. They’re a massive investment, in the technical sector, for future projects, both military and commercial. I hope this sufficiently illustrated the justification, for Great Britain having super carriers? Without them we’re just little Britain, a shame and dishonour, to our history, heritage and the price that our forebears made, for us to become Great Britain.

The QE class and the F35B are an awesome combination. Think of these two as a modern version of the Invincible class and Harrier and they make wonderful sense. Ski ramps don't need any maintenance and don't break down. As for not being nuclear this is a plus as well, many ports won't allow nuclear-powered ships to dock. No decommissioning issues after service use. Replenishment of fuel can be acquired at the same time as food etc. Lastly giving the QE class a hard time because of UK poverty is risible, you might want to look at the stupid net zero policy and COVID-19 £500 billion nonsense.

@farmerned6

Ай бұрын

ITS SLOW Slowest Carrier we've had since the FIRST hermes Slow carrier = Less wind-over-the-Deck = LOWER take-off weights, and Harder rolling recoveries/landing Its Not A plus being Non-Nuke AT ALL , damn thing needs a tanker following it around

@azzajames7661

Ай бұрын

​@farmerned6 It reached 32 knots in trials, so it can get up and go when needs be😜

@azzajames7661

Ай бұрын

​@farmerned6 They can go 10,000 nautical miles, mate, so she can go wherever she likes😆

@azzajames7661

Ай бұрын

​@@farmerned6The french one that everyone loves on here, only lasts 5 years before the nuclear reactor needs refueling, which cost a shed load and takes many months 🤔 so it is not better than a few hours of refueling and then months of cruising around, like the QE class does😉

@farmerned6

Ай бұрын

@@azzajames7661 Full air wing on board? - Nope full crew and provisions? - Nope fully fuelled and munitions load? - Nope 32 kts in trial is worth nothing , it needs over constant 30kts at full war load

14:44 Oi! that's one of our f35's! It's Australian! you can see the Roo and everything! go buy your own! ;)

At the end of the day HMS Queen Elizabeth sailed to the other side of the world with the largest compliment of 5th generation fighters at the time with 4 world class air defence destroyers, 2 frigates equipped with the worlds leading sonar tech, and 1 of the worlds best attack submarines, if you don't see that as a threat off you're coast then you're an ally.

@melgross

2 ай бұрын

It’s great against those who can’t fight back too well. But it’s not modern or powerful enough for major enemy action.

@nsatoday

2 ай бұрын

Even if we weren’t Allie’s, laughs in 16 Nimitz class, and 1 Ford class carriers.

@timphillips9954

2 ай бұрын

@@nsatoday The US navy would have trouble finding Europe.

@bobg1069

2 ай бұрын

Most of the aircraft on board were US, not Royal Navy. More than half the aircrew were RAF not FAA. While they were pratting about in South East Asia, the imminent threat to the stability and future of the UK was taking place in the English Channel. Well done Fish Heads, wrong place, wrong time, with the wrong equipment.

@madsteve9

2 ай бұрын

All branches of the UK's Armed Forces are under equipped. In terms of numbers. In terms of capability. Scrap the 0.7% Foreign Aid Budget for a start. Move the Trident Strategic Replacement back to the Cabinet Office. Move M.I. 6, back to the Foreign Office. The Royal Navy, should then be fully equipped with: The 2x QE Carriers, each with 36x F-35B's, 12x AW101 Merlin HM2, 4x EV-22 AEW Osprey, 4x KCV-22 Tanker Osprey, 4x AW101 HC6 or AW149 CSAR. And then the ISR & Attack Drones once the E-Cats are fitted in about 12/15 years time. 2x Helicopter Assault Carriers. 32,000 Tonnes. With, 12x AW101 Merlin HC6, 6x CH47F Chinook, 6x AW149 Utility, 6x AW249 Fenice RAH , 2x AW109 CLOH. 2x Amphibious Assault Ships 12x SSN Attack Submarines. The 7 Astute Class & 5 more of the new AUKUS. 6x Command Cruisers. With full Flagship C6ISTAR capabilities. Stretched Type 83's with Land Attack Cruise Missiles (Tomahawk replacement) and a Rail Gun, added to the armament. 12x Type 83 Destroyers. 155mm Main Cannon, Short, Medium & Long Range Surface to Air Missiles. NSM Anti-Ship and Coastal Strike Missiles. 3x Phalanx CIWS 1b and 4x 30mm DS30M, 6x Anti Submarine Torpedo Tubes in the Helicopter Hangar. 2x AW159 Wildcat HA1. Flight Deck big enough for a CH-47F Chinook / V-22 Osprey. Strong enough for an F-35B. 12x Type 26 Frigates. Order another 4. All with a AW101 Merlin HM2 16x Corvettes. Sell the Type 31's, they are under armed, and not that capable. 3,750 tonnes. Littoral Warfare Corvettes. 1x 76mm Leonardo/ OTO Melara Super Rapid Cannon. Short Range SAM. NSM Anti-ship Missiles. 1x Phalanx CIWS 1b, 2x 30mm DS30M and 2x 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns, with 40mm Grenade Launchers, Hitrole Weapons systems. 1x AW159 Wildcat HA1, 4 Fast RHIB assault boats, deployed via stern gate conveyor belt system. Extra Sleeping quarters for a Platoon of Royal Marines, for stop, search and seizure / Armed Raiding & Boarding operations. 12x Offshore Patrol Vessels. 1x 30mm DS30M Cannon, 2x 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns, 2x 7.62mm GPMG and hand held Missile systems. Landing Pad with Refuelling for Helicopters up to CH-47F Chinook. 2x Heavy Lift Mine Counter Measures mother ships (see RFA Diligence and , which can carry very quickly 3x Minehunters, where needed around the world. Then also becoming a Support & Repair Vessel. 12x Minesweepers. 1x 30mm DS30M Cannon, 2x 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns. 2x Artic Patrol Ships. 1x 76mm Leonardo/ OTO Melara Super Rapid Cannon. 1x Phalanx CIWS 1b. 2x 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns, with 40mm Grenade Launchers, Hitrole Weapons systems. 2x AW149 Utility Helicopters. Plus Hovercraft, Tracked Vehicles, and a Platoon of Artic Warfare trained Royal Marines. Fleet Air Air 96x Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning. (Plus 1 with QinetiQ for ongoing support) 13x Bell Boeing EV-22 Osprey AEW&C. 13x Bell Boeing KCV-22 Osprey Tanker/Transporter. 49x Leonardo AW101 Merlin HM2 49x Leonardo AW159 Wildcat HM1 13x Leonardo AW149 CSAR 37x Leonardo AW101 Merlin HC6 Commando Helicopter Royal Marines Air Support 25x Leonardo AW149 Utility 25x Leonardo AW249 Fenice (Phoenix) Armed Reconnaissance and Fire Support 13x Leonardo AW109S Grand Communication Liaison & Observation Helicopter

No, not having catapults is NOT a problem. Every decision has its pros and cons; a catapult needs A LOT OF ENERGY, which nowadays can only be achieved by nuclear propulsion. The entire UK is short of the highly qualified personal needed to operate those and even more so the Royal Navy. Also, catapults require A LOT OF MAINTENANCE, since the next gen electromagnetic catapults are on its infance yet. So opting for STOVL doctrine and F35B is the right decision for the UK (and others) now.

@rsrocket1

23 күн бұрын

Lack of cats is not a problem for primary aircraft if it uses Lightnings and Harriers. It then needs others aircraft like tankers, COD, EW and ASW aircraft. You are limiting the legs of your air arm force projection to a couple hundred miles and a couple hours if you intend strike capability and not just patrol. At least a couple of these carriers are better than what the UK used to have and better than being relegated to the ASW branch of NATO.

Steam catapults, though well-proven, are incompatible with the modern diesel+gas powerplant used on the QEs. The would have needed to either switch to an old-style steam (boiler + turbine) plant, or use the then-unproven electromagnetic catapult system of the Ford class. That would have greatly increased manning and maintenance requirements. 33% of time spent on maintenance is typical across all warships, including US, French, and Chinese carriers. You're making a mountain of a molehill there.

I'll have to lecture you again Simon, we actually currently have 34 F-35B's in service but 4 of them are in the US for testing and training. By the end of next year, we will have 47 F-35B's, it would've been 48 but we lost one last year. The British government would like the manufacturing process to be quicker but LM are at absolutely full capacity with huge backed up order books so we have to wait our turn. Things have also been slower as the M.O.D want the latest tranche of the F-35B's, which is understandable, so that has affected delivery dates etc...

@ronclark9724

Ай бұрын

The Lockheed Martin Fort Worth plant has opened a second shift to produce F-35s as there is so many on order. When production is completed over three thousand F-35s will have been built over a program length of three decades... Presently as of the end of 2023, 150 fighters are being produced annually... As for the British, do the RAF and RN have 150 fighters?

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

The whole list of objections is kind of eh. We're ramping up F-35 procurement, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using F-35B, there are plenty of useful missions the shops can perform aside from peer-on-peer head to toe battle (that's what American Supercarrier fleet formations are for, but we can support them), new ships or vehicles of any kind often have mechanical teething problems early on, the Navy are training up new crew but that of course takes time. There are problems, they're being fixed. Welcome to military reality.

@buddystewart2020

Ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 ... I tend to agree with you. I can't remember the last time ANY Navy launched a new ship class that wasn't criticised.

@michaelpielorz9283

Ай бұрын

If you own a trusted Sword fish please phone the RN immediately!!

@johnchristmas7522

Ай бұрын

sO WE WILL HAVE THE f-35b's IN 2050?

The Prince of wales sailing from Portsmouth in feb was delayed by 24 hours not a week and it was due to the basin test being delayed nothing mechanical

@crowbar9566

Ай бұрын

He talks shite, like every other lefty hipster.

@RogerPalmer-pi9yb

Ай бұрын

Correct. This bald fellow can’t get his facts right.

The ramp is better for fuel than direct vertical takeoff, but still not as fuel efficient as a catapult. Hence the lack of range. Having said that, that ramp thing was genius. Britain invented that for the harrier.

I believe 34 F35B now in UK hands, a total of 47 to be in service by end of 2025, within 21 months. As for USMC F35B's deploying on occasion, this was likely part of the original plan to leverage NATO resources. Defensive missiles need to be added, as well as anti-drone capabilities. This is not an insurmountable problem, and it's even possible to deploy UK or allied vehicle-mounted AD systems on deck. Yes, the UK needs more escorts, but once again allied navies are being leveraged. These are extremely capable ships and ensure the UK remains a major power.

@jordanhooper1527

2 ай бұрын

Aren't the escort ships coming soon as well?

@gregs7562

2 ай бұрын

​@@jordanhooper1527yup. 8 T26 asw frigates & 5 T31 gp frigates. Aspirations for a further T32 design optimised for naval drone warfare have been mentioned.

@nsatoday

2 ай бұрын

Hmm. How many challenger 2’s are combat ready right now? How many combat ready soldiers? How many subs and how many aircraft? The U.S. has more M1 tanks in storage than the UK ever built of challenger 2. Even depleted Russia has more combat ready tanks than the UK. The U.S. has built more F-35’s than the RAF has aircraft total. Without NATO assets the UK is NOT a major military power anymore. I think that the UK has great soldiers and sailors on the individual level but there just aren’t a large force with no real reserve to speak of. P.S.- the U.S. helped during the falklands, behind the scenes of course. The UK is our ally and I for one would love for the UK to get its butt in gear, Germany as well.

@TorianTammas

2 ай бұрын

@mhamner2831 - A major power has a navy and the UK is at best a supportive role to a real navy.

Prince of wales somehow started construction in 2021 and commissioned in 2019 😉

@matthewgubbins8515

2 ай бұрын

That's some timey wimey Dr Who shit

@markgrehan3726

2 ай бұрын

That's how good the British construction teams are.

@foofydoo

2 ай бұрын

just one of the many inaccuracies in this video

@HTeo-og1lg

2 ай бұрын

Yep, they constructed the time-machine before the aircraft carriers to effect the trick.

@ivanconnolly7332

2 ай бұрын

Philadelphia experiment capability.

The Queen Elizabeth's design with redundant islands is forward thinking

When the carrier's get their full compliment of F-35Bs. Then your be singing a different tune. Plus all that you don't know.

6:49 The 25 knots is the stated speed, QE 2 has been verified to reach 30+ knots

@EdMcF1

2 ай бұрын

@@sarahkb7 Then the propellor falls off or it needs to refuel.

@johnc2438

2 ай бұрын

@@sarahkb7 However, neither British carrier can maintain that speed for long -- top speed uses tons and tons more fuel. As for the American carriers, nuclear power makes maintaining top speed a no-brainer. Pedal to the metal, all the way!

@fuzzbuttwoolsey5676

2 ай бұрын

@@sarahkb7 That's a bit of a nitpick, the equivalent of saying nuclear power stations are steam power stations. Yes the power is transferred to the shafts by way of steam turbines, but the steam is generated by the heat from a nuclear reactor. The source ultimate source of that energy is a nuclear reaction, hence nuclear powered, this is an important differentiation to make as much earlier ships would also have employed steam turbines, with these being powered by a coal or fuel oil furnace which require refueling regularly in timescales measured in days rather than years.

@scipio7

2 ай бұрын

None of the top speed figures of aircraft carriers are to be taken seriously. Some are exaggerated, most are understated. American carriers are rumored to be capable of close to 40 knots, and are known to outrun their escort ships when they want to.

@heuhen

2 ай бұрын

@@scipio7 we saw that when the Israel conflict, when one of the US carrier moved from somewhere in Atlantic to Israel coast in mer 1-2 days and a NATO Mediterranean fleet had to meet up with her for the escort, while US destroyer was catching up!

5:10 uh simon...my man... Uh... 2021 start construction and finished in 2019? Im not thenonly one who heard that, yeah?

@Soenglish44

2 ай бұрын

2011

@AdamB8791

2 ай бұрын

You figured it out though didn’t you😊

@Scraps_Underscore

2 ай бұрын

They built it in 2021 then sailed it through a giant time machine...so we could get it quicker ... It just works

@blackjed

2 ай бұрын

@@Scraps_Underscore I guess it just does. Anyway we can bring the queen forward? Or Diana? Both?

@blackjed

2 ай бұрын

@@Soenglish44 I know he meant 2011 but the fact they didn't fix it or put the year up as he was talking is a bit...disturbing? It wasnt a terrible gaff. But no one caught it.

American here. Say what you will out British procurement, but it's a lot better than Canadian procurement. [You should do a video about the second rate (at best) CAF.]

One good thing with carriers is that they are around for decades and will be continually upgraded. So missiles are likely still in its future and will be installed with minimal effort. The catapult on the other hand, would basically take a carrier out for a year and would be a massive and costly resign of the ship.

British carriers operate as part of NATO's fleet. It gives the UK stealth strike capability anywhere in the world, an ability the UK has never had. Inside NATO, it was only a limited capability with the USA alone. The F35 is a game-changer, and the British F35s can carry the Meteor BVR missile, perhaps the best in the world. While steam catapults would add significant capability, they also require significant cost not only for purchase but for maintenance as well as significant drain on power plant. If the USA manages to get electromagnetic catapults stabilized in the Ford class, these could be retrofitted on the British carriers though at significant expense. The F35 is a HUGE game changer. Prior to that, the only stealth strike was only 20 B2s, retired F117s, and F22s that have limited ground strike ability and low numbers. If the British could get two carriers with 100 F35Bs, that stealth strike ability is better than anything the USA had prior to 2015 or so. These carriers are roughly the same size as the old American Kitty Hawk class, certainly big enough. The biggest drawback of a Kitty Hawk was small armory size since they were initially designed for nuclear strike not conventional. Still, they gave good service for 50 years.

@thedigitalrealm7155

2 ай бұрын

Nobody is debating the merits of having a carrier of some sort. It's more that these are fairly shit carriers. Super light on defense, light on aircraft due to British doctrine on requiring no aircraft be stored on deck etc. They just aren't a good design

@mikepekarek5895

2 ай бұрын

@@thedigitalrealm7155 I completely disagree. You don't need a $15B nuclear aircraft carrier like the USA is building to get a ship that is highly capable. This ship is the best carrier the UK has ever put to sea because it can launch stealth strike, a capability which the UK didn't have before this, without relying on American B2s or the retired F117s. There are only 20 B2s, and the 80ish retired F117s are extremely limited, mainly to just laser-guided bombs. The F35B can carry Meteor BVR missiles and many NATO precision ground attack weapons. It is currently the most capable jet the UK flies, including the otherwise excellent Typhoons.

@Steelythestacker

2 ай бұрын

The only flaw with your argument is that the UK carriers run the F35 B. While it is an F 35, it's not near as capable as the A or C model. Now keep in mind while looking up the statistics of the 3 models, the B doesn't seem that less capable, but in order to take off it can't have a full weapons load or take off with a full tank of fuel. They are much less capable than a catapult launched C model, which can take off with a full weapons and fuel load.

@mikepekarek5895

2 ай бұрын

@@Steelythestacker You are letting perfect be the enemy of good enough. The F35B is an excellent aircraft, and it is capable of mid-air refueling. Launch, go meet a tanker, go fight. Steam catapults have penalties on available ship power and would have required a huge design penalty for all the plumbing. The brand new electromagnetic catapults were a huge engineering nightmare and are just now starting to mature into usable gear. Only now would it make sense to install catapults on the QEs, and having capable ships in the water now is more important than maybe having them in another 5 years. The world today is at its most dangerous point since 1938. The UK needs to get as many capable systems in the field as possible. If anything, the UK needs to double or triple its defense budget.

@mikepekarek5895

2 ай бұрын

@@thedigitalrealm7155 Steam catapults on a non-nuclear carrier have significant penalties on ship power - see Kitty Hawk class. The electromagnetic catapults are just now starting to mature into usable gear, and when the QEs started building were not a sure bet. The UK needed capable ships at sea as soon as possible. This was true starting 2014. Today we are at the most dangerous point in history since 1938. 2014 was like 1933. The UK needs a military with capabilities it can field now, not the best possible it can't afford and might not have been possible a few years ago.

These are not toys. Given rising probability of a world conflict I’m happy they have them.

Sunday times did a great 2 page spread in Jul 22 on the 2 carriers and why they have arrived at where they are , from conception to final build. Very interesting.

One of the best things the Royal Navy have done in decades. They should have made them CATOBAR and had better air defense. Only real point of clarification is that the air wing numbers are misleading. These ships can carry significantly more aircraft (if the UK ever get them) the US numbers include on deck numbers the UK numbers do not.

3:52 the ships 7:11 their service 9:50 criticisms 18:28 conclusion

@Daginni1

2 ай бұрын

"Criticisms" = The greatest navy on earth devolved to the greatest dependance on its colonist navy.

@brianford8493

2 ай бұрын

No shit!! 😂

@xyz-hj6ul

2 ай бұрын

​@@Daginni1 The greatest navy on earth with a completely compromised, single-not-twin engined strike fighter because the Brits wanted to play too and then brought STOVL to the game because, 'ain't it cool!'. No. No it is not cool. It shrank the wing. It destroyed the weapons load. It killed the combat radius. It turned it into a total slug of a kinematics jet. And then, having said you wanted 138 of the damnable things, you stopped at 24. 'Meanwhile' Britain is now part of the Gen-6 developing nations, having taken advantage of the gullible American's trusting natures to steal VLO technology so that they can go on with their Vae Victis Vickers approach to selling what they cannot afford themselves. While, having whored VLO around the world with the F-35, we can hardly complain. But we can sorta-say: 'Ahem, about those other jets Mr. Tier 1 team member...' As the MOD looks slyly at us and announces that they really cannot afford /two/ super carriers, just now. Britain is a city state. She was once a proud navy because she acted as a price-gouging importer of other countries resources, from tea to rubber to oil. Without that ability to do markups, as the 'commonwealth' now is not hers to rape and pillage for beads and a bottle of alcohol; Britain cannot pretend to super power status any longer. Nor can EU-rope. No common budget. No streamlined, rationalized, overhead (NATO is a jobs program for generals with massive replication of command and stockpiling logistics) and it should not shock anyone that Europe is what it has always been: a bunch of squabbling remnants from a bygone era (Greco Roman, 3,000 years ago as in) which simply lacks the purchasing power to be a self-defensing superstate. This is their problem, but the U.S. *must* acknowledge their juvenile condition because we are in the opposite condition of too much third world bloat and dire straits age out of productive population at home to be continuing to guard other people's walls while they commit slowmo suicide with the MENA. Once this is clearly understood, America will cut loose the albatross of NATO and the Europeans will sink or swim, on their own.

@endjentneeringclub

2 ай бұрын

**Dora the explorer voice** Can you spot the bitterly proud American in the comments?

All that I'm gonna say is that, when WWIII breaks out, Britain's gonna be glad to have even these two carriers. The reason why so many people are able to question their capabilities and their value right now is because they haven't had a chance to reach the prime of their operational lives in the heat of conflict. Once they can prove their mettle, people will forget all about the teething problems - until they start to age less gracefully, of course. Same is true with our Osprey aircrft - the teething problems were viewed as a liability when they were first deployed to Iraq in 2007/2008, but they serve our country almost flawlessly ever since then - until they started to get old and break on us recently, of course.

@Mike7O7O

Ай бұрын

What use will a couple of under resourced carriers be in an exchange of ICBMs? We don't have the aircraft, nor do we have the crews to operate both ships at once.

@CountScarlioni

Ай бұрын

@@Mike7O7OThe aircraft problem is a worldwide issue out of the UK's control due to Lockheed being backlogged. If anything it serves the UK right for buying US and not developing its own replacement for the harrier (which critics would have bemoaned as a waste of money). It'll unclog eventually, and the carriers have decades of service ahead of them so it's hardly some sort of black mark against the ships themselves. As for the crew thing, it wasn't the carrier understaffed, it was support ship crew that wasn't up to strength. In an emergency they'd requisition who and what they needed. In peacetime it just means there's some more hiring and training to be done. As for the ICBM bit... who builds carriers for a nuclear war? What a weird thing to say.

@GregDeman

Ай бұрын

If WWIII breaks out I suspect that all the carriers will be heading back to port.

The Royal Navy website says the QE class can carry upto 72 aircraft, with upto 36 of those being F-35B's, presumably the other half would be helicopters or potentially drones but still this is more than 1/3 of what the Ford class can carry, im not sure how you work that one out. These sorts of videos generally annoy me, they're usually pesemistic and negative but in reality these are very capable ships and we're lucky to have them, once they are fully operational they will prove themselves, any new new ship of this magnitude and complexity will inevitably have teething problems, look at the Americans with the Ford class, years of delays and billions over budget, we aren't the only nation to have problems. Lastly its worth remembering that very few nations have this capability and outside of the US they are the most capable carriers.

@Kakarot64.

9 күн бұрын

Keep in mind that due to RN doctrine the UK's stated figures for aircraft carried are almost always aircraft that can be carried in the hangers and doesnt include deck parking.

The best comedy show on KZread!

33% downtime would be conducive of a three ship class. which was the orginal plan. to have a ship in a constant state of readyness the uk needed 3 carriers. 1 havbing maintence, 1 being re stocked and on standby and the 3rd on deployment. the third ship was axed due to budget constraints and we now end up with a gap in the carrier fleet rotation so inevitably we end up with no ship ready for deployment.

It's OK though, at least we have Trident nuclear weapons to defend us. Oh wait...

@pilkipilki4472

2 ай бұрын

We have them but they don't fly

@johnthomas7038

2 ай бұрын

@@pilkipilki4472 It is claimed that we don't actually own them either., just the subs that carry them.

@randombloke10

2 ай бұрын

@@johnthomas7038we absolutely own our nukes, still 2 poor tests look really bad when that is our only nuclear option

@johnthomas7038

2 ай бұрын

@@randombloke10 I advise you to check - journalist Peter Hitchens has written on numerous occasions that original Trident procurement aggreement signed by Mrs Thatcher clearly stated that the misiles are basically leased from the United States government and also that Britain agreed not to use them without the prior permission of the United States. This agreement was meant to remain secret, but was leaked by a civil servant.

@MrSigmatico

2 ай бұрын

Well you keep voting that Tory govornment in, also you fail to get an actual democracy, so I am wondering what do you expect?

36 F-35s plus helicopters is about half of the capacity of a Ford. The Fujian isn't "another diesel-powered carrier", it's steam-powered, with boilers and turbines. That's actually a pretty significant difference. As an American I think that the QEs have combat capability in between a US amphibious carrier (which also employ F-35Bs) and a CATOBAR supercarrier like the Nimitz or Ford class. A more interesting comparison is to the French Charles de Gaulle (henceforth CdG). The CdG has catapults, angled decks and arrester wires, and operates a much better AEW aircraft as well as somewhat longer-ranged strike aircraft. Your point about whether these were the right investment given the UK's broader post-Brexit economic woes is valid. Sort of a nitpick, but at 12:54, a Ford or Nimitz class carriers RAM and ESSM batteries would only come into play _after_ the escorts have done their thing, not before. It's also worth noting that for the Nimitz class in particular those were mostly retrofits, and the RN could presumably do the same with the QEs. CAMM (as fitted to the Type 23 frigates) appears to be a very good fit for point defense.

Error regarding the F-35 variants. The F-35B is the VTOL-capable variant. The F-35C is the one that needs catapults to launch.

While I may not be as aware of most British economics and issues, I'd say the QEC do their jobs rather fine Considering that at the moment they stand as a fairly new carrier from the 2000s, alongside Ford and Fujian, you'd expect these problems to occur with such carriers Not to mention how the carriers did actually have a easy way to switch out from their current cope ramp to a more powerful catapult system (Project Ark Royal) As for conventional power, which was actually planned, the only reason it was removed was for 2 reasons, one is that the ship was built in Scotland, a nation that doesn't like nuclear power very much and is already against the British when it came to their Vanguard class submarines Two is the legal issues of actually bringing the ship towards allied docks, such as Australia which has banned nuclear powered ships from entering their space. Finally the fact over maintenance, while 33% may sound like quite a ton, its actually just slightly over the average amount that an aircraft carrier actually undergoes. It's why navies will follow a system called the rule of 3 or 4 when it comes to carriers (Also used by submarines), one undergoes maintenance, one is out, one prepares to dock and one prepares to leave, the massive problem comes to the fact the UK only has 2 carriers, which can be considered the least cost efficient solution in comparison to having 3 or even just one carrier. So maintenance isn't really a massive issue either but rather British requirements Realistically I don't see why people make it such a big mess about how QEC and POW are bad ships, yes their country that manages them is under fire but I don't suspect they'd be scrapped any time soon, and may even receive upgrades well into the future

I remember in the 1970s how bad the Abrams tank was being attacked. We see how that turned out. Proof is in the pudding.

@littlewink7941

2 ай бұрын

A bad tank design is not an economic disaster,a bad carrier design,if built is.

@TorianTammas

2 ай бұрын

Why do you compare thousands of tanks to two misconstructed boats?

@ironmage1

2 ай бұрын

The proof is not in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

@brettgarfitt7424

2 ай бұрын

I believe the F-14 was given a bad rap during trials (one shot itself down!) and in early years of use but look at its history and how well it worked out. Same with the Harrier - nobody thought it capable of much in the early days but it turned out really well - even the US are still using them! New designs need time to bed in and iron out the kinks.

@MultiVeeta

Ай бұрын

​@@ironmage1 misconstructed? Tell me youre one of the many gullible believers of the media doom stories without telling me. People like you are the reason the media plows so much nonsense because you lap it up in spades which allows them to sell stories. The carriers have been designed to allow catapult launchers in the future if needed. They currently operate like USMC commando carriers which incidentally also use F35B non catapult planes.

People say they’re bad carriers. Sure no catapult is a limitation and I’m on that bench. I think that was a stupid idea. However, we have to remember that the F-35B is a very capable aircraft, and if you compare it to the F/A-18C Super Hornet or SU-35 Super Flanker, it basically _can’t lose_. Stealth is such a powerful asset in modern engagements the F-35 rules the skies, and if it needs to conduct Air support like a Hornet does, it’s similar. For all of five seconds the bay doors are open and it’s non-stealth, but after that you can’t find it again. We have to remember that The QE’s carry arguably the best Fighter Jet in the world, and that is not to be underestimated. In addition, the forces Britain will be facing are Russia and China, who also operate carriers with no catapult, and so are limited in the same way the QEs are. Not to mention the F-35 obliterates the air wing of Russian and Chinese carriers. All in all, The QEs make up for their shortcomings, and you can’t take that from them

19:00 QE launched at 65,000 tonnes displacement. PoW launched at 70,400 tonnes as it had extra equipment installed before launching, while QE had that equipment installed after launching. So say 70,400 tonnes for each warship. Now add fuel, stores, weapons, aircraft, crew and ammunition. That’s another 10,000 tonnes to add to displacement. The QE class are conservatively 80,000 tonnes at full war load, with additional systems added over the life of service, it’s likely they will reach 85,000 tonnes.

We got each for around a couple a billion each which is a steal when you see the capabilities and technology, the teething issues are an acceptable cost.

Could be worse. Could be the Kuznetsov 😂

@atty.fernandog.madarcos8724

2 ай бұрын

😆😂🤣💯

@SandsOfArrakis

2 ай бұрын

What if the Kuznetsov and the Elizabeth had a love child.. I mean.. love boat? What would it be like?

@peterwait641

2 ай бұрын

Must be hard to get spare engine parts from Ukraine !

Thanks for remembering the TSR2. :)

Turbine and tea powered carrier. Greetings to our cousins from across the pond 😊

USS Gerald R. Ford to HMS Queen Elizabeth ... Hold my beer dear.

@niweshlekhak9646

2 ай бұрын

Ford has done one serious combat deployment though, QE has no serious deployment.

@neilsbs8273

2 ай бұрын

Remind me how long did it take for the Emals to get working?

@martinlaurie1971

Ай бұрын

Gerald Ford v three Queen Elisabeth class, if you’re going on cost.

Aircraft carriers are like own a gun. It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

@BabyMakR

2 ай бұрын

I found the American.

@adamdavies6248

2 ай бұрын

Unless you're starving, food and shelter are kind of important too. (any comment about hunting for food with a gun, and I mean this with respect to our American friends, does not take into account England's draconian gun & land laws, good luck with your sub 12ftlb air rifle, pigeon & rabbit do not survival make 😔. But yes, when it comes to military hardware, it's Always better to not need it. All said with respect and no offence meant to anyone. 🙏

@Pushing_Pixels

2 ай бұрын

In this case it's more like having two guns and only enough bullets to load one of them.

@Alphacheesehunter

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, except when your partner has a history of suicide attempts. She's better now, but better safe than sorry. Militarily speaking, true but unfortunate.

@BabyMakR

2 ай бұрын

@@adamdavies6248If you are unable to survive in the wild without a gun, you deserve to win the Darwin award.

Oh boy, gotta hate when people who don't know what they're talking about wade into this subject: RIM-116 is a close in weapons system, basically another Phalanx, designed as a last ditch, not "to be fired before escorts get involved." To put this into perspective RIM-116 is a 9km range. Sea Viper/Aster which is carried by British Escorts (yes the RN does actually have escorts) has a range of over 120km, and CAMM, the missile family that's used for short range defence in the Royal Navy, has a range of over 25km. Given the fact that launching a missile like that directly off the carrier means a FOD plod before the carrier can resume operations there are completely valid reasons for suggesting that by the time your escorts (which again THE UK ACTUALLY HAS) have failed to destroy a target you'll be in Phalanx range of the threat anyway! It's not actually a head scratcher to the people who know what they are talking about. In FACT the Invincible class where launched with a Sea Dart anti-aircraft missile system during their service in the Falklands and it WAS REMOVED because in favour of more flight deck space after operational experience, leaving the Invincibles, like the Queen Elizabeths, without a missile system. Oh and great an F-35 rant. Lets talk about the F-35 numbers then: Currently the UK has 34 F-35s, but the current order is for 48, with an aspiration for 138. So why so slow? Well it's in part because the production line of F-35's is a bit slow in the first place, but also because any F-35's the UK currently buys will not have the planned Block IV upgrades, and will have to go back to the factory to have those upgrades installed. Oh and the Invicibles, when all three where at sea at the same time, carried 36 Harriers, at maximum load out. Just worth remembering that little fact. Oh and the Americans haven't "had" to lend any of theirs, and Carrier Strike Group 23 deployed with an all British Airwing so they haven't "lent" any of theirs on the last deployment, but hey, what to details like that matter when you have an outrage train to start? (Also lent is a heavily loaded term, the US was looking at the feasibility of deploying USMC airpower from British Carriers and so deployed one of their squadrons, with US pilots and US planning staff on board the Queen Elizabeth, it wasn't like they just handed over a few F-35s). OH and GREAT we're going to lie about CATOBAR being just a money thing now are we? Nothing at all to do with the RN having had decades of experience with STOVL aircraft carriers... okay so you are actually full of shit at this point because CATOBAR vs STOVL is not "Objective" there are in fact merits to STOVL, for example: Flight training. Guess what, keeping air crews qualified on CATOBAR carriers is REALLY hard, so hard in fact that the French have to borrow flight time from American carriers to keep their aircrews competent in the skill. Which I'm sure youtubers like you would LOVE to stack into a video like this. Or how about how STOVL carriers can operate their airwings in heavier sea states than CATOBAR? Or the fact that a STOVL carrier means that "bolters" aren't a thing, so you don't need dedicated AAR aircraft, or aircraft to land with a significant fuel reserve. Also worth noting that the F/A-18 (the only realistic alternative to the F-35) has a smaller combat radius than the F-35B but nobody ever mentions THAT fact when complaining about not being CATOBAR. Oh and great a Project Ark Royal reference at the end: For starters THE NAVY DID NOT WANT CATOBAR from the start. They asked for QE designs to be made with design considerations to be made for either CATOBAR OR STOVL, and from the start went with STOVL. There was a brief dalliance with CATOBAR in 2011, which was u-turned on pretty quickly. More importantly Project Ark Royal is going to fit a catapult....rated to launch light weight drones not manned fighter jets. Acting like this is a retrofit into a CATOBAR carrier is extremely dishonest. Let us be clear: Fitting CATOBAR would have been a disaster, not just from a money perspective (it would have seen one of the carriers cancelled), but also because the QE's where not designed with Steam Catapults in mind. Contrary to your blithe assertion that catapults are a "old news" EMALS are brand new, and the only catapults that the QE's can accommodate are EMALS systems. The same EMALS systems in fact that still have an abysmal failure rate on the Gerald R Ford, that have delayed her entry into service for years and still in 2024 present a huge obstacle to her being employed on operations. Imagine the field day KZreadrs would have with THAT scenario.

I mean we got them, so thats not to bad! We could do with more navy not less. And less starving kids, it is possible to do both if you're not incompetent and corrupt. We may be glad we have them in the future.

I find interesting that he thinks 33% of the time on maintenance is something uncommon to carriers, the US has 11 super carriers, because 1/3 of them are always on maintenance, or ferrying to get to maintanece, so they realized they needed at to have 4 super carriers at any given time, one to protect each coast and two available at all times for a two front war like the WWII, so if 1/3 are on maintenance, 1/3 are on route either for maintenance, or are on downtime for other reasons, like crew and command replacement, reasuply things that cannot be done at sea, etc. So to have 4 supercarriers available at any given time they needed 11 or 12 of them. All nations with carriers knows they spend roughly 1/3 of their lifetime on maintenance and upgrades. And usually it takes a bit longer to reach that point, the French Charles De Gaule spent a 60% of its first 5-6 years in service on maintenance and upgrades.

Normally really good content but today it’s just a daily mail commenter esc top trump stats understanding of the carriers 1) The carriers are not nuclear for a few reasons. Cost being an obvious one but also HMNB Portsmouth is not a nuclear port and can’t be due to its proximity to the built up Portsmouth area. This means the carriers would have to go to either HMNB Clyde which does not have the infrastructure to support 2 large ships or HMNB Devonport which the carriers can enter due to the narrow width of the port. 2. No carrier needs defensive weapons. Carriers travel in massive task groups and if all of those ships are gone and all of the air wing are gone and it’s a carrier on its own firing defensive missiles then there is a very high chance those missiles won’t do a lot and the carrier will still be lost. 3. The carriers are able to be fitted with cats and traps if required however as of right now we only have 1 fixed wing variant which does not require it so why install billions of pounds worth of arrestors? 4. People point to how great US super carriers are however for 50m longer of flight deck they require a crew of 5000 compared to 800 for QNLZ class. Also US sailors and marines who come onboard QNLZ class comment on how much nicer to live onboard the class is - someone who’s spent the last 6 years serving on both ships

@USN1985dos

20 күн бұрын

You make some good points, but some of your points also just expose how the British government and culture have handicapped their aircraft carrier program. 1) Cost is a major one, but not an insurmountable one if the government was serious about fielding advanced carriers. There's no reason that a "nuclear port" should have to be far from built up areas. Norfolk, San Diego and Yokuska are all built-up cites where the US Navy stations nuclear carriers. 2) Carriers should have defensive armament as well. In these days of near-peer threats, drone swarms, and the proliferation of missiles to smaller nations, the carrier should be able to contribute to the defense of itself and the strike group. With the 2 Sea Sparrow Launchers and 2 RAM Launchers on the USS Gerald Ford, that is potentially 58 missiles or drones that could be intercepted outside of the range of a CIWS. 3) Refitting the cats & traps on the carrier would be excessively costly by this point. The decision to purchase the F-35B could have just as easily been made at the time to purchase the more capable F-35C. Considering how much the Royal Navy champions the idea of interoperability in order to lighten the burden on a severely reduced British fleet, they really shot themselves in the foot as now only USMC F-35B squadrons can operate from their carriers, and they can only operate from US Navy big deck amphibs. They've lost all ability to operate with French and American carriers. The reliance on the ramp also means the Queen Elizabeths can't launch fixed wing AWACS aircraft, meaning they have to rely on less capable helicopters for that role. 4) If you're in the Navy, then you know how important crew members are to damage control. Having 5,000 sailors means that you can fight the ship and still have plenty of personnel for damage control, even after taking losses from hits. While it may be more expensive to the budget, I've never been on a ship where having fewer crew members made the ship more functional. Additionally, for those 50 more meters of ship, the Gerald Ford can carry 75-90 aircraft vs a reported max of 65 for the QE's. As for your point about quality of life, you're absolutely right. I had the privilege of going over to the HMS Somerset and the HMS Illustrious. It took all of my self respect (along with knowing it was futile) not to beg the navigator of the Somerset to let me stay on their ship forever. I was so depressed when I returned to our frigate. And the poor sailors from the Royal Navy who had to spend a week with us couldn't wait to go back to theirs. But, although life aboard a US Navy ship (especially a smaller one like a frigate or destroyer) is extremely spartan and uncomfortable, there was no ship I would've rathered go into combat on than my own.

Bureaucracy is the art of making the simple complicated and the effective ineffective.

This man has knowledge.

So I was waiting for an argument against the QE Carriers warfighting capability. The only argument is Britain's poverty. If you want a Navy, you have to pay for it. Simple as that.

Doesn't defining poverty based on relationship to the median kind of guarantee that a certain proportion will always be there regardless of the actual outcomes of their income? I'm sure the poverty problem is real and severe, that way of defining it just struck me as odd

@_Mentat

2 ай бұрын

Yes, the people who make their living of poverty have defined it so that it will always exist. Anytime a Russian billionaire moves to the UK and pushes the average up, another 1,000 people automatically enter poverty.

@Septulum

Ай бұрын

The median average is not the mean average. It is the value which half the population is above and half below (The median of the set 12, 9 , 8, 6, 6, 5, 5 is 6 (mean is 7.29). It is possible therefore to have zero poverty, just not under the current UK government who understand neither maths nor ethics.

@zaco-km3su

Ай бұрын

Not really.

@zaco-km3su

Ай бұрын

@@_Mentat No. That's the average, not the median. In the median, the Russian oligarch just pushes 1 individual into poverty.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that the optimum naval aviation solution would be for the QE class to have catapults, it should be remembered that the F35s are shared with the RAF. In that regard their VTOL capabilities give them a "Harrier" like ability to be used as close air support from make shift facilities close to the front line. Given the UKs limited defence spending maybe this dual capability gives more overall bang for each buck.

As a Brit, your opening is not quite accurate. The FIRST purpose built aircraft carrier was launched by Japan a few weeks before the Royal Navy. The first 3 Japanese Carriers that had Bridges were on the Port side. Japan then changed to the British standard Starboard Island design.

@farmerned6

Ай бұрын

Hermes was the First to Start construction Japan wasn't suffering post WW1 Like UK was

Thank you Gordon Brown. The man with the reverse Midas touch.

@chubbybrown4real

Ай бұрын

At least he sold it at value, a low value unlike BP, BT, Railways, water, British energy, royal mail, British pipelines, British gas and every single electric distributor for a pittenece sooo shush

Aircraft capacity is up to 70 and speed is up to 32 knots as proven for both ships on their trials. The F35b total order is 48 rising to 72. - we only ever had 40 sea harriers and they performed quite well when needed.

@guypalmer3846

2 ай бұрын

This video is a plethora of inaccurate facts and figures

@rayofhope1114

2 ай бұрын

@@guypalmer3846 I agree - the whole concept of the video is negative .

@KRGruner

2 ай бұрын

LOL, BS on the 72. May or may not happen, we do not know. But more to the point, the F-35B fleet, you are apparently not aware, is NOT entirely dedicated to the carriers and in fact is at LEAST half RAF. This means it has other commitments besides the carrier force. This was NEVER the case for the Sea Harriers (which, by the way, operated from carriers one third the size of the QE and PoW). UK messed up incredibly bad with this. Face it.

@madsteve9

2 ай бұрын

The Invincible class could only operate 12 Sea Harriers each at anyone time. And just 22 aircraft in total. The rule of thumb is 1,000 Tonnes per aircraft.

@paulhunter1735

2 ай бұрын

@@rayofhope1114 Why is it that any time someone states facts that don't put something in a good lite it's called being negative? How about it's just the truth. When you have two aircraft carriers and you don't even have enough aircraft to fully support one that is a problem. Saying it is not being negative it's just stating a fact that makes some people get butt hurt. At some point in time there may be enough planes to supply the RAF and the Royal Navy but at this time there aren't and that's not a minor problem when the entire point of an aircraft carrier is to deploy aircraft. If you think that this isn't a problem and the video is just being negative then you need to have a reality check.

Bloody expensive mobile testbeds for these new fangled laser jobees, say what!!

As far as I remember the french CDG had serious problems with its props. 33% of time in maintenance is pretty normal for an air-carrier. The lack of cats can be an operationnal issue. British frigates are good enough to provide a proper anti-missile defense to both british AC's. The lack of F35's is a joke.

You make the point that the carriers are too expensive as is, but you advocate for fitting the carrier with either Nuclear power to enable steam catapults to be used, or highly expensive and not fully working EMALS, or the 20 million per plane more expensive f-35C

@tconthejazz1

2 ай бұрын

Also utterly fails to explain why the US Marines love the F35B. Frankly the best configuration of the UK armed forces would be something like the US Marines.

@sergarlantyrell7847

Ай бұрын

It was this, even more than the inaccuracies that makes me think they just wanted to make an inflammatory hate video.

@Mike7O7O

Ай бұрын

I was thinking this too, recently. If we have to have smaller armed forces, then lets make them as deadly as possible. I unreliably recall that when the Gurkhas attacked one of the mountains surrounding Port Stanley. The Argentinian troops ran away and surrendered to the Scots Guards. Such was and is the Gurkha's reputation. I'm not familiar with either force structure. However, perhaps reconfiguring the Army into a few independent battle groups and the Army/Marines into a version of the US Marines MEU. We seem to treat our service people and families badly from the moment they sign up until their status as a veteran. Sandhurst was recently described as a 'toxic environment'. Service accommodation has been catastrophically badly managed and continues to be. As for the Military Covenant. Many organisations signed up to it, couldn't tell you what it means or their people never knew they were signed up. I'm not saying military service is all bad. Its not. I know from experience. However, we ought to only have the armed forces necessary to meet the missions we can afford and that are essential to our nation's interests. With 20%+ of our nation living in poverty, we must stop pouring money down the drain in Africa and other areas full of mostly failed states. I would cut our aid budget back to those few missions where there is immediate need and every pound spent has an audit trail. Local militias or crooked governments want to plunder the aid and stash it's proceeds in Switzerland? Then the taps get turned off immediately. Other NATO nations need to step up to their funding commitments or face sanctions of some kind. Its unacceptable that some of the other NATO members who are developed countries, cannot deploy battle groups that can act independently, but be fully integrated into an overall structure. The UK is far from alone in making complete balls-ups of procurement. E.g. Littoral Combat Ships. (US) Submarines (Australia) @@tconthejazz1

@crowbar9566

Ай бұрын

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about !!

@user-kc1tf7zm3b

Ай бұрын

Yes. As with anything endeavour in life, you either do something properly or not do it at all. The carriers are not entirely effective as they do not feature, catapults, the less F-35B VSTOLs are in service, there are no defensive missiles and that there are only 2 carriers, when 3, or even 4 carriers needed for a truly effective carrier force. With these capital defence projects you cannot do things by half as this has serious and fundamental implications which compromises the entire fleet.

Invinc class used to have Sea Dart air defence missiles, removed for extra deck space.

I seem to remember a news story about one of these developing cracks on her thrust block during trials.

It is delays in the F-35 development programme which has delayed aircraft purchases. And before anyone moans about the price of the f-35, Eurofighter cost about £100m per aircraft too.

The part about the RAF and RN having to share F-35s is a bit misleading... Just as they did with Joint Force Harrier of the early 2000s, squadrons from both the RAF and Fleet Air Arm form a joint force to operate F-35Bs from both carriers and land.

You said the UK "had to" use U.S. F-35's to fill out the compliment of the British carrier. My impression was that those aircraft were aboard as an exercise to improve inter-operability between allies, not to make up for a lack of airframes.

@cjjk9142

2 ай бұрын

Yes and no, we were waiting for delivery, delivery was slow because most f35b sent to the usa not to us but was also an opportunity for joint exchange

It’s kinda funning and fitting that you guys showed an Australian F-35 to represent a UK F-35 when talking about the lack of UK F-35s 😆

If you think British military procurement is bad, I encourage you to look into Canadian military procurement. In fact there’s probably a whole video there on its own.

According to a fairly senior RN officer of my acquaintance, the reason the Navy didn’t want catapults (pre -Brexit of course) was the fear that they might be forced to buy Rafale-M. The idea of using French aircraft being obviously much more dangerous to Britannia‘s rule of the waves than (nearly) no aircraft at all.

@madsteve9

2 ай бұрын

The option of older tech of a Navalized Eurofighter Typhoons with the Vector paddles developed for the X-31 project by DASA, was also discussed. BAE & M.o.D. wanted F-35 technology. BAE's Digital hands free Vertical landing tech developed for the AV-8B & Sea Harrier upgrade, went straight into the F-35B. Which made BAE a tier 1 partner, getting lots of work. M.o.d. got access to the F-35's computers & ISR, from which British firms could develop future capabilities / offer better tech.

@gilesholtby1702

2 ай бұрын

Which is bonkers really. The Rafale is a bloody good aircraft

@madsteve9

2 ай бұрын

@@gilesholtby1702 Qatar is using theirs in the Anti Ship, Ground Attack and then Dogfighting role. The Typhoon is doing the Fighter Interceptor role. And the F-15QA Strike Eagle doing the Interdiction role.

@Madbrood

2 ай бұрын

@@gilesholtby1702understatement of the year!

@SandsOfArrakis

2 ай бұрын

​@@gilesholtby1702 My guess would be that if the Rafale happened to be a US designed and built fighter they would have been launching from Elizabeth's deck right now.

Simon, this US-pandering script, with its cynical "things seemed to go fine" comments. The F35B is a potent weapon. Yes we wanted CATOBAR but even without it the air wing on the at-sea ship is formidable. As for utilisation and maintenance, for sure 3 carriers would be preferable and reliance upon 2 means more wear and tear upon them and longer periods in-dock for maintenance, replenishment and work-up, but the intention has only ever been to have 1 carrier deployed at any one time. Lets not encourage our US cousins to look down their noses at us. We remain the second most effective navy in the Western world.

@CtrlOptDel

2 ай бұрын

Many of his scripts are written by Americans & he seems to have no shame reading anything so long as he gets that sweet, sweet AdSense revenue…

Nuclear power = massive cost increases per ship if the nr of ships built is small.. additionally it increases the crew company significantly with multiple shifts who increase the nr of non engineering crew to support them.

As aerial (perhaps hypersonic), surface and underwater drones get more sophisticated, aircraft carriers will become large, slow-moving targets.