Form Canada.... Happy to see our Motherland is getting their new ship.... May Her Majesty live long enough to see her new ship to enter and win a battle in her name. Rule Britannia, Royal Navy!

The decision to build them was taken in 1997, and the first is due to come into service in 2020. Sill, I suppose the best part of a quarter of a century is lightning fast by the MOD's standards.

@nathanwhelan8048

Жыл бұрын

and its now 2022 and they haven't even got all the aircraft for the second carrier which is why they waited so long due to th fact the aircraft are being produced in America and for many different countries not just our own

Its amazing that at great cost, we still manage to do it on the cheap!

@seansands424

5 жыл бұрын

We all way,s do it on the cheap and rubbish every thing in this country is done barging basement or sold off this country is so rubbish and 5th rate the government got no self pride

One of these new Aircraft Carriers should pay a visit to the Falklands in 2022 in commemoration of the war with Argentina 40 years ago. Not only as a show of force to the Argentine that there’s a new sheriff in town but also to pay tribute to the servicemen who made the ultimate sacrifice there.

Britain is an island nation. It needs aircraft carrier.

@rjk69

7 жыл бұрын

I don't see the connection.

@SkodzGaming

7 жыл бұрын

huh... Canada doesn't and we are a continent practically... Aircraft carriers are good for power projection such as what the US does since a couple decades all over the world with iraq, afghanistan, etc. Canada can move it's fighter jets to other countries (because you know it can fly and it can cross oceans...), and operate it from allied air fields near mission area (such as Ukraine) with no aircraft carrier... Hey, I'm not saying it's not a good thing that UK has some, I wouldn't mind if Canada would double it's military strength just so we do not rely on the US and UK so much if shit hits the fans but yeah, they arn't truly necessary.

@zekhong

7 жыл бұрын

Well , Britain is Island nation , so navy is needed for its defense and it also has oversea territories ,So it need air craft carrier.

@stupidburp

7 жыл бұрын

Canada is a large country but has a relatively small population so cannot support an expensive military. Still, they could use some more capable systems even if they are hand me downs from others. The US could give them six Los Angeles class submarines for example.

@Rampant16

7 жыл бұрын

6 Los Angeles class subs would be a lot for Canada. I doubt they could pay the operating cost without breaking there budget.

Switching to CATOBAR (Cats and Traps) would of been far more costly and not offered the interoperability with the French that everybody assumed. I'm afraid your expert is being a bit fast and loose with the truth in this interview. 1) To operate them as CATOBAR carriers was so costly that in effect QE would never of been converted as she was going to be completed in STOVL configuration due to her already being in build during the 2010 SSDR. There wasn't the budget to convert her after completion. With STOVL the UK gets both carriers. 2) Whilst the Rafale could have crossed decked onto the QE class the F-35C could not operate from the Charles De Gaulle. The F-35C was too heavy for the CdG to safely operate taking away the interoperability. 3) Training, to maintain CATOBAR operations takes a significant amount of resources. STOVL operation on the other hand can be refreshed easily and we have decades of experience switching RAF/FAA pilots from land to Sea operations. The UK would have struggled to maintain a surge capacity using CATOBAR. 4) The daily sortie rate quoted in disingenuous, the maximum with a full airgroup consisting of 36 F-35B in a 24hr period is 110. That is only ten less than a Nimitz class and more than the CdG. 12 airframes quoted in the interview is a standard airgroup during peacetime operations. I would quibble his statement that the CdG can beat the QE class for sorties. Every study out there says otherwise. With STOVL the RAF can easily provide the extra pilots to allow a full airgroup in an emergency. That is not the case with CATOBAR. 5) RAF/FAA pilots operating French and US CATOBAR jets was not just about deck opertions. It was also to keep up flight hours and develop skills using advanced digital jets off a large carrier. The pilots will cross over to STOVL operations easily so it is in effect a non-issue. 6) Extra range would have been nice but the F-35B still exceeds the Range and payload of Harrier. We also have other platforms and munitions to reach deep into enemy airspace...Tomahawk and Stormshadow. We also have the Voyager Tanker that has global reach and fuel offload capability. The choice has been made now.

@Jigglypuff981

7 жыл бұрын

The only issue being that the Royal Air Force adhere to their own rules when it comes to flying aircraft under certain conditions, they lost an OC's Harrier and very nearly lost a second trying to embark in one of the CVSs because they wouldn't take the advice of the WAFUs that flying at sea with NVG would not work. If Joint Force Lightning is going to be nearly as effective as the Government and the RAF believe it to be, they'd seriously start having to listen to the Fleet Air Arm

@Fedaykin24

7 жыл бұрын

Jigglypuff981 Old history, the Lightning force will be Purple to all effect. Operating out of the same airbase with the same pool of aircraft. 617 Squadron includes navy pilots and presumably 809 NAS will have RAF pilots. The common pool of aircraft will get RAF or FAA markings but for day to day operations the pilots will be assigned a serviceable airframe regardless of it having RAF or RN on it. Operationally they will operate far more like a US Marine Corp unit. All this petty inter-service rivalry helps neither service.

@Jigglypuff981

7 жыл бұрын

Fedaykin24 I appreciate that, but the past inefficiency of the RAF in terms of carrier-borne operations doesn't fill me with much confidence. I'm sure, and I somewhat hope, I will be proven wrong but the Royal Air Force have never appreciated naval aviation in the same regard as the Royal Navy have

@Fedaykin24

7 жыл бұрын

Jigglypuff981 Well this is a different scenario to Joint Force Harrier where the RN Harriers were salami sliced out for being different. Keeping Lightning in a common pool incentives the RAF and RN to play nice.

@todorgibsonralevic6684

7 жыл бұрын

You sound like you know what you're talking about. Would you be as kind to explain to me what CATOBAR is? Thanks.

Well despite some negative comments I have been part of the QEC constitution from a pipe dream to a ship! I had my own doubts in the beginning but it really is a great piece of British engineering and technology. Watching her grow from sheets of steel to the biggest navy ship ever, I'm pretty proud to be part of the team and quite rightly so she is simply amazing, 😬

@stupidburp

7 жыл бұрын

You deserve to have even better ships.

@Anderson21G

7 жыл бұрын

I personally don't doubt the ship but I do doubt how its going to be used, its was in effect a waste of money, like in the video having 12-18 on a sortie seems a bit lacking in operational effectiveness, but I suppose it saves all aircraft going for a drink if the carrier is struck, policies and money is going to hurt the ship In my view.

@seansands424

5 жыл бұрын

@@stupidburp YES we do but our traitors government cheapskate what they are

The salient point: The E2D Hawkeye can only be deployed from a CATOBAR carrier.

@brettmitchell202

3 жыл бұрын

An unarmed prop plane vs a stealthy armed jet. Hmmm Now, the F-35 can do everything the Hawkeye did, and much, much more, it is a stealthy, fast jet fighter that can slip in and out of enemy defenses unnoticed.

@Yuu-it1zk

3 жыл бұрын

Do you know what AEW means???

"it focuses on where the jets can meet their best concurrency and not on what gives the best military package" What is he even trying to say here? The purpose of an aircraft carrier, a military asset, should always be to provide the greatest benefit to the military. Why would you deliberately design the ships to be less effective militarily?

@predattak

7 жыл бұрын

What he is trying to say is this: We fucked up

@Proteus6684

7 жыл бұрын

exactly

@stevejohnston9972

7 жыл бұрын

Very true, this is where you get politicians, and accountants who are totally clueless. We start with something good then you end up with nothing. Cost cutting is a dangerous thing. If Jeremy Corbin gets in he will sell them.These carriers need to carry more aircraft, and the Prince of wales should be refitted with a catapault system to use a cheaper and just as effective fighter aircraft. Perhaps a marine version of the typhoon.

@jimsteele9289

7 жыл бұрын

I was going to post something along these lines. You said it; I concur. That guy really knows how to spin.

@Rosscifer

7 жыл бұрын

He's saying they're getting the most out of the aircraft by allowing more space for each one. It makes sense if you consider how stupidly expensive the planes are. Of course the real reason is they can"t afford more planes. But the carrier could be retrofit to squish in far more planes and they'll probably do that if the economy ever recovers.

I've been looking at the comments section and it makes me sad to think that even Facebook has more sensible comments than this. What a display

I think not going with a Steam cat and trap system was a good idea, We've had them before and we moved away from them when we developed both the Harrier and Invincible class carriers, They're more hassle than they're worth in the current climate, I think it's highly likely we'll get an emal system if we believe it's needed when the Carriers reach their mid life refits, As for the aircraft numbers we'll manage with 12 to 18 per Carrier but if we found ourselves in a situation where we do need more we'll get them, even if it means allowing an American flight wing on board, But if we do need to do that we'll have a lot more to worry about than whether there's enough aircraft on board as it'll likely mean we're in another World War. I'd of liked to see an emal set up and possibly a variant of the Typhoon on board to complement the F35b's but having the money to run two full compliment Elizabeth class carriers for a country of our size is a big ask. Personally I'd of also liked to have seen HMS Ocean kept & used like an F35b mini-carrier with her own support ships. She was only around 25 years old and only a few years out from a 60 million pound refit we gave her so why we had to sell her so soon is beyond my understanding, At around £85 million Brazil got a bargain considering the recent 60 million refit.

Great To See HMS Queen Elizabeth . And Nice To See Those Tug Boats That For Many Many Year's Have Done a Magnificent Job. British Gibraltar,UK Overseas Territory 🇬🇧.

A rare factual and objective assessment. I would had, though, that a key deficiency in the STOVL/ski jump concept versus cat-and-trap will be the grossly inferior embarked AEW/AWACS capability, which is critical in modern network-enabled warfare. Huge mistake.

@KRGruner

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, you are right. So many mistakes...

@jmcfintona999

7 жыл бұрын

Again they fudged iy when it comes to an aircraft carrier. They didn't learn anything from the invincible class still operating inferior stvol aircraft instead of a naval version of thr F35, hell a tge french naval raffale or the f18 would give the British carriers teeth and above all range. They haven't learned from the Falklands war where only for the incompetence of the Argentines the Royal Navy shoud have been sunk as sub sonic harriers should never have been a match for mach capable mirages.

@eddyhobelman9254

7 жыл бұрын

Johnny McCusker

@mwnciboo

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe not....The AEW Sea King in 2003 was much praised by the US, and there are plans for a MERLIN AEW and even a V22 based AEW with a triangular phased array on top and a large mission compartment. Necessity is the mother of invention.

@KRGruner

7 жыл бұрын

Helicopter-borne AEW will always be grossly inferior, regardless of the quality of the radar itself. The limited operating ceiling and slow speed make sure of that. Maybe an AEW version of the CV/MV-22 can do better, but it will never be an E-2D (or even C). Same issue (maybe worse) as far as a carrier-borne tanker, and then again, the F-35B is inferior in every way to the C model except avionics which are the same.

There are many uninformed and ludicrous comments here.

It's basically the worlds largest helicopter carrier. I like the look, it's clean and minimalist and in all fairness if they really need to they can convert it to CATOBAR This thing is basically a one armed monster, no where near as capable as it should be, but still packs a punch.

@MiMI-hh4ue

Жыл бұрын

They always had the F-35 in mind, when they were considering the design of this vessel. There are no restrictions for take off or landing, must have been the final decision that was made. The Brits love the Harrier type Jump Jet as was proven in the Falklands war, and the pilots believe the F-35 is way beyond that level. Believe me, every attention is paid to every detail and the British will not settle for second best.

What's the betting by the time the carrier is operational, it will be equipped with 36 Sinclair C 5's

big enough for the drones which is what they will be mostly used for.

"Where the jets meet their best concurrency and not where the best military effect that can be delivered is?" wut?

It seems Great Britain will have the capacity to grow the air wing considerably if there is a need. I think this is good news because they have the potential for lots of growth on this new class of Carrier.

If you can get 24 5th gen fighters on one ship, I would say that packs a punch !!

That's ok America still loves you even if you have half carriers. They will help in the next battle of the North Atlantic.

@paulward6862

7 жыл бұрын

Lin B Thank you

@TheBoldImperator

7 жыл бұрын

so why do you keep following us into them :)

@DustinTheNinja

7 жыл бұрын

Phill America hasn't been officially at war since ww2

@Wottan007

7 жыл бұрын

+Dustin The Ninja : ???Not in Viet Nam ? Not in Irak ? Not in Afghanistan ?

@HotDKai

7 жыл бұрын

Phill we won the revolutionary war

congratulations on UK's newest amphibious assault ship Queen Elizabeth Class!

@75619630

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@THEASSASIN1511

7 жыл бұрын

ahadicow ships*

@jbearmcdougall1646

5 жыл бұрын

It'll also act as a ship to move thousands of immigrants to the UK.... Not a total Merde pile..!.! 😒😒😒 (Sarcasm)

@bbomber2299

4 жыл бұрын

It's a super carrier not a amphibious assault ship

@jb76489

4 жыл бұрын

Bbomber 22 can’t launch/ recover more capable CATOBAR aircraft Cant launch fixed wing AEW It’s a big amphib

fun to see 2016 opinions of these ships compared to now

Good honest answers

PLEASE tell me you guys aren't going to rely upon the F-35... Holy fuck.

@andron2348

7 жыл бұрын

No we have a "back up" plan of deploying Fairey Swordfish along with Sopwith Camels, depending on what RAF Hendon has in stock at the time!

@XskiXedgeX

7 жыл бұрын

Andron 234 Both of those would outperform the F-35.

@andron2348

7 жыл бұрын

Good point

@jamesmulligan7413

7 жыл бұрын

yup

@XskiXedgeX

7 жыл бұрын

Rick 1998 are you triggered? The only combat the F-35 is currently ready for is in a simulator. Sorry, facts hurt

built to take up to 72 aircraft, will sail with 12. genius :

@harleyokeefe5193

4 жыл бұрын

It obviously won't sail with 12 🤦‍♂️

@SteveJones-om6ks

3 жыл бұрын

Harley O’keefe it will if it’s mission doesn’t need more. Disaster assistance in the West Indies for example. Why have more than a squadron of fighters embarked when Chinooks and transport Merlins will be more useful?. Take 12 fighters and load the rest of the space with more useful airframes....which is the idea behind the ‘tailored air group’ concept.

@stephenfgdl

3 жыл бұрын

@@SteveJones-om6ks then why have a aircraft carrier then....

@SteveJones-om6ks

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenfgdl simply because a couple of squadrons of big transport and heavy lift squadrons, that can be embarked and supported on a big carrier, would be damned handy in a disaster recovery situation. The Japanese drafted in one of their small carriers to help out with the Fukushima incident the same way. The QE class can do that with four times more capability!. It’s a flexible and very useful platform for combat or peacetime tasks.

I like the dual redundant islands ; And of course the cloaked warp drive (:

It seems to me that drones are quickly becoming more important than manned aircraft except for highly sophisticated surveillance aircraft. Aircraft carriers are still useful for drones. I'm very surprised that drones are not far more implemented. They are superior in many respects, such as basic surveillance and bombing.

long live the queen

The move from a CATOBAR carrier is a huge mistake by the UK.

@Worldwidegam3r

7 жыл бұрын

To be honest, i agree. I'm not sure if im happy to say " well at least we have aircraft carriers now".

@antonymitchell3385

7 жыл бұрын

It made sense initially, as we have a lot of experience of STOVOL operations from Harrier/invincible work, however since the early withdrawal of Harriers and the Invincible class ships, I can certainly see how CATOBAR could be more appealing.

@abes3925

7 жыл бұрын

Antony Mitchell The problem with STOVL is limited takeoff weight limit and can only operate STOVL aircraft. CATOBAR allows for maximum take weight and can operate a huge number of aircraft. The most important assist to a carrier is an AWACs and COD capable aircraft. The E-2 and C-2 can fly further and high loitering flying time than the merlin and v-22. Also carrier way more equipment and cargo

they'll be able to float

I will never understand the decision to not install the CATOBAR systems, not just for the interoperability factor but for the range of aircraft that can potentially use that system. Using STOVL aircraft limits the capabilities of the entire carrier, there is no STOVL AWACS or electronic warfare platform and we're now pinned to just using the F-35B as the sole strike and reconnaissance platform. If they had stuck to the original plan and used the F-35C, they could also operate if required the E-3, S-3, EA-6B, Rafale, Etendard, F/A-18, not to mention any future developed carrier borne aircraft. Madness.

The cat and trap “sort of” capability which the French have “maybe” got 😂

I really don't understand the British and their DOD:s decisions. When they Integrated the AMRAAM with Tornado F.3 they did it without datalink for mid-course updates for supposed cost savings reasons. Then they went ahead and got the datalink anyway in post. Ended up paying more than they would have if they did it right away. Same with the Typhoon's gun. First no gun, just a concrete ballast. Then gun, but no ammo or support. Then gun with ammo and support - ended up costing more! And now the Carrier. Come on Brits! Get your shit together!!

@hansgruber788

7 жыл бұрын

we're retarded, sorry no. our decision makers are fucktards

@S1lverarrow

7 жыл бұрын

thats true capitalism, thats the only way how Britis elites can afford London estate, just make their citizens pay more.

The carriers we have come from a tactical, strategic and doctrine dispute within the Royal Navy. This has been going on since WW2. When we were building 3 Malta class carriers and they were scrapped from the light carriers. Then in the 1960's they wanted to build the QE class and improve harriers and air defense destroyers, but they was scrapped. Finally they build the carriers, but they have a doctrine dispute around ASW capabilities vs all round carrier operations. As to build the carriers for all round carrier operations you need AAW destroyers, so you can't have as many ASW ships. They your submarines need to be geared for seek, find, attack missions. Rather the seek, track, hunter-killer missions. It changes your entire fleet.

Hi all. Can anyone explain to me the last part of the final sentence in that clip? : "The British approach to carrier operations has[...] it focuses on where the jets meet their best concurrency and not what the best military effect that can be delivered is." In particular what "best concurrency" is? Thanks.

There is an olde saying that if it looks right it will probably be right. These vessels do not look right.

@ZolaMagic25

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe because it's not finished? Just a thought.

For Christ's sake see sense and fit cats and traps to the second carrier and modify the typhoon to operate from it. This is easily possible and will provide a much mightier punch.

@Daz555Daz

7 жыл бұрын

Typhoon is a shambles as well. What is it really capable of even today?

@AugmentedGravity

7 жыл бұрын

why the Typhoon? we have the F-35

@ricksmith6637

7 жыл бұрын

they cant get the f-35 working

@trpilot6

7 жыл бұрын

Are you out of your mind?? Quit reading Pierre Sprey and David Axe articles and start listening to the pilots who are actually flying the F-35. It doesn't matter if the pilots are American, British, Australian, or Canadian...they all say the exact same thing. It is the best fighter they have ever flown and far exceeds what they thought the F-35 was capable of. Every pilot that has flown it during exercises all say they feel like its cheating when they go up against 4th gen aircraft. The F-35's are fully operational and are kicking ass in every exercise they've been in. In fact there are currently more F-35's in US service than there are Typhoons in the RAF. So this BS that "they cant get the F-35 working", is just that...BS. At Mountain Home AFB they went 8 and 0 against the F-15. At Green Flag, forget about being shot down, the enemy never saw a SINGLE F-35 during the entire exercise, meanwhile the F-35 had a 100% mission success rate.. And most recently at Exercise Northern Lightning the F-35 went an astonishing 110 and ZERO against the f-16, F-18, and F-15 in air to air combat, at one point shooting down 27 F-16's in a single sortie! If this is the F-35 "not working"...i'll take it all day long.

@superbike1

7 жыл бұрын

trpilot6 Ok well if the facts released are accurate then that is fantastic news as all I want is to understand that Britain makes the best choice although the carrier variety will be compromised in loadout and air time so I still think Britain made a bad decision not to use cats and traps.

i made the port lights for the two ships here in australia

Interestingly Russia never tried to compete with the British and Americans in terms of the number of aircraft carriers. Instead the Russians focused on missiles to take them out, like the SS-N-22 Sunburn.

I see the production of HMS White Elephant and HMS Boondoggle are coming along quite nicely

@andron2348

7 жыл бұрын

Actually your wrong, they cant find the rubber bands to power the propulsion units, On the plus side we have enough balsa wood to make the planes

@SentinelIP

7 жыл бұрын

Andron

@andron2348

7 жыл бұрын

SentinelIP Yes?

... I thought this was a World of Warships video > mfw

@MajesticDemonLord

7 жыл бұрын

Hehehehe

@Blackmage4001

7 жыл бұрын

I'm so glad i'm not the only one.

@cfjruth

7 жыл бұрын

Hahaha me too. "British CVs?! Nice!!" Oh, wait... they mean real ones, not WoWS ones. Damn. WG, when?!

@gordon861

7 жыл бұрын

Same here. I thought it was odd that Jingles hadn't talked about UK Carriers before this video came out.

@ambience5042

7 жыл бұрын

Feel alot better knowing im not the only one

That's a strange approach to carrier ops: focussing on concurrency rather than on military effect. Carriers count the most when they can deliver air power in high tempo ops if the necessity is there. Being able to amount only 36 sorties a day - which is highly questionable given the very poor availability/maintanability rates of the F-35 in the latest US GAO-report - from such a large platform, is a matter of having been pennywise and pound foolish. But that comes with the choice for the F-35B as well. Having decided against cats and straps - albeit is a wise one, considering the huge cost overruns and delays of the EMALS - the QEII class also has less potency in terms of reach and payload-range performance of its air component. And it is certainly a huge setback in terms of possible other air assets that could have been deployed (E-2D Hawkeye, a future UCAS, etc.) One might have considered a conventional (steam) catapult, which certainly seems to function well on older US carriers and the French Charles the Gaulle. By doing that, the RN would have had two very valuable assets that could also host US and French aircraft. The RN might have been able to cash in on that in terms of burden sharing arrangements with France, as its sole carrier regularly has to remain in drydock for maintenance and its air complement then has got to train from US carriers to remain current. But I guess that the economic downturn and the Brexit-vote also have spoiled this opportunity. I sincerely hope that some time in the future the RN will be able to make the conversion back to cats and straps and will be able to use these magnificent ships to their full potential. The current state of world affairs would certainly justify such a move. And maybe change the F-35Bs with F-35Cs, E-2Ds and a few EA-18Gs in the proces. Because it is higly likely that control of the sea/power projection will be far more important than amphibious capabilities.

By constantly switching between carrier/aircraft options we have delivered yet more value to defence company shareholders.

it would seem war machines are fast becoming redundant. the enemy is walking right through the front door anyway.

@Joe-rx7ht

3 жыл бұрын

The enemy has been getting elected into office by their own idiot voters for the last 20 years.

I personally think we would have been better off with cats and traps, and instead of buying the F-35 we should have made our own version of the Typhoon capable of cat launches and arrested landings, I know the F-35 sways more toward ground strike instead of air to air but the Typhoon makes a bloody good multirole aircraft and isn't really unable to do what the F-35 can't maybe other than taking a larger payload.

@chrisklitou7573

7 жыл бұрын

speedy gonzales F35 is a overrated piece of shit

@ceirwan

7 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately we are fast losing the capability to manufacturer our own aircraft. The 2010 defence spending review really hit our aircraft manufacturing hard.

@mmarsh1972

7 жыл бұрын

The problem is modifying the Typhoon isn't as easy or cheap as you think. Back when the F-35 program was in doubt I know the MOD was actually considering buying French Rafales as it would have been cheaper than trying to modify the Typhoon, plus the Rafale was a combat proven carrier fighter. It would have made sense.

@chrisklitou7573

7 жыл бұрын

mmarsh1972 admit it though F35 is overrated

@mmarsh1972

7 жыл бұрын

Chris Klitou I do. I simply don't see how the F-35 is going to compete against the Sukhoi's unless Lockheed has a trick up its sleeve.

..."Where the jets can meet their best concurrency and not what the best military effect that can be delivered". Right. So basically "Efficiency Quotas". Real inspiring.

we should've built five of them, loads of subs, battleships, destroyers and cruisers. Our navy is a shell of its former glory.

WTF ! We are left carrierless for years for this picaso shit

@wcresponder

7 жыл бұрын

picaso shit... that was hilarious....good one ol' boy.

seems like a complete waste of money then! 12 aircraft??!! it's a very expensive unfunny joke. Britain deserves better than this. What are our allies going to think when we can't deliver on the sorites? ?

@rcm926

7 жыл бұрын

They clearly said in the video that it can carry more than that.

@manothewoods6759

7 жыл бұрын

Robert Medd yes I know that but he also said it will mainly carry 12 aircraft. there is a massive difference from 12 to its full capacity. it isn't being utilised to its full potential is it. that is my point.

@rcm926

7 жыл бұрын

I guess not, but I suppose it just means if anything happens it it they don't also lose an extra 20 jets

@manothewoods6759

7 жыл бұрын

chandler pegg now if that's true that's even more embarrassing. having more 'foreign' aircraft than our own on board. I think the decision makers have their head some where smellier than the sand!

@marektrochan9293

7 жыл бұрын

ManOthewoods it is need if you want to start wars ..

I understand from a top secret source the carriers will now have on board the new Mk 7 Pedalo's and a large number of pointy sticks for self defence.

Very good video

did she just try and compare a US supper-carrier with this carrier? I'm from the US and even i think that was a low blow. that would be like comparing the Duke-class frigate to the Ticonderoga-class cruiser

@y0Milan

7 жыл бұрын

US carrier costs twice as much as one of these. For the same price as a Gerald R Ford class you could get 2 QE class. The two QE would be far more capable than one GRF. The 30 odd jet thing is a joke, this is a 70,000 tonne ship she could carry that on her flight deck for gods sake.

@nip3004

7 жыл бұрын

really? an easy 30 on a flight deck of less than 16,000m? lets say that some how they work magic and manage to fit 30 aircraft on a flight dec with enough room for it to still be use able. its slower has infinitely less range and doesn't even have a catapult drastically limiting the aircraft it can use. the ford also doesn't cost 2x as much they are closer to 60% the cost. anyway my point was they are not the same class of ship one is a carrier the other is a super-carrier

@y0Milan

7 жыл бұрын

abb criss Nuclear power plant doesn't mean infinite range, with 4000 crew on board american carriers still have to resupply all the time... and heres a picture of QE with F35 on deck, as you can see theres 19 on deck and theres barely any cramming... and the deck is 16,000m^2... ukdjstatic-b4d.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth1.jpg

@nip3004

7 жыл бұрын

the range is a hell of a lot longer than 15000km of the QE and 1 that is not an image of the QE it's a rendering of the QE 2 there is not a lot of room left if you want to maintain safe and efficient operations of the flight deck

@Toolpusher

7 жыл бұрын

The USS Gerry Ford cost over $12bn, HMS Queen Elizabeth cost about $5bn, that's in US money, so aye, more than twice as expensive, not 60%.. You're right in saying they're different class though, albeit with the same overall purpose.

lol.. i thought it's a review of world of warship ..

@samat5893

7 жыл бұрын

same here, i m cv player but this is not the video i was expecting....

US military used to complain that in the Vietnam war they had to fight with one hand tied behind their backs . Well , Britain have developed two carriers where the sailors and airmen will have to fight with two hands tied behind their backs. Warriors need to go into battle with the best equipment available. the military industrial complex has some much to answer for. from the SA80 to the HMS QE .

TIME TO START BUILDING A 3RD CARRIER OF THE SAME CLASS AND LAUNCH IT WITH THE NAME HMS ARK ROYAL

@lovelybitofbugle219

3 жыл бұрын

Yes mate, and a fourth 🇬🇧💪

Any nation that intends to have a naval presence that means anything needs aircraft carriers that are on the level of the US.

@COLDoCLINCHER37

7 жыл бұрын

doomlord117 air craft carriers are useless in major warfare

@DeltaVK

7 жыл бұрын

The.#1 T - What? Aircraft carriers are and have been essential in warfare for the past 60-70 years.

@aizaz1234

7 жыл бұрын

The.#1 T Thats why the US maintains 23 of them right? Because they are useless...

@Dazfos

7 жыл бұрын

Nope because they employ about 4.2 Personnel for a Ford, 5.2k per Nimitz and 1k for the Marine's Assault Carrier doubt any president or party want to sack about 80k sailors and officers serving on them plus at least another few million military and private contractors to build and repair the carriers, plus all their equiptment and all the companies that go under in 5 to 6 states, that their based and built at.

@harleyokeefe5193

4 жыл бұрын

doomlord117 and the U.K. Mans 2 super carriers we are pulling out weight

Without Cats and Traps, this is no better than the Chinese or the Russian Carrier. As least they have traps/arresting cables. And without Catapult, critical AEW planes such as E-2D cannot be launched. It put UK in a serious disadvantage comparing to the French or the Americans.

@Jigglypuff981

7 жыл бұрын

Not a chance. For STOBAR carriers to be effective they need very high performance aircraft which has only been achieved through adapting land-based designs, and the Indian Naval Air Arm are now learning the hard way that the MiG-29K isnt fantastic. They are at a disadvantage themselves as they have the apparently suicidal handicap of reduced payloads with a ski jump takeoff and the airframe stresses associated with forceful arrested landings. The Queen Elizabeth class are able to achieve very high sortie generation rates similar to those of the Nimitz class but a ski jump wont break down

@thejeffinvade

7 жыл бұрын

Jigglypuff981 So F35B isn't a variant from a land-based Aircraft? F35B is considerably overweight and can't even carry 2000 lbs bombs. And you expect STOVL carrier to be superior than STOBAR? OMG......Did you listen to the video? Elizabeth class is a just glorified American Class amphibious assault ship. They are only gonna equip each carrier with twelve F35B for training operations.....60K tonnes ship is only gonna carry 12? And you expect those twelve F35Bs could be launched (through the only jump) at the same rate as 80+ F35C/F18EF on the Nimitz Class with four catapults? Are you kidding me?

@Fedaykin24

7 жыл бұрын

The QE class will carry the Merlin ASAC which will provide AEW. The Searchwater 2000 radar and CERBERUS mission system have proven themselves to be highly capable. It is a good enough solution that doesn't require the vast cost of CATOBAR operations to maintain.

@thejeffinvade

7 жыл бұрын

Fedaykin24 They put radar on helicopters because there is no other choice. For the same reason, Chinese putting radar on Z-8. Helicopters can only fly to a height of 5000m, which means only limited radar coverage. And it can only stay in air for 2-3 hours, that means it can only patrol 150nm ahead of the feet for 1.5 hours. The Russians did the calculation, you need at least 8 helicopters to do the job of one E-2C and is still considerably less effectiveness. That is why the Chinese is researching fix-wing AEW aircraft for their second home-made carrier which is expected to be equipped with catapult. www.janes.com/article/62780/china-s-third-aircraft-carrier-likely-to-be-fitted-with-catapults

@Jigglypuff981

7 жыл бұрын

No. The F-35 was designed as a "common" airframe from which three distinct variants were designed and procured. The Su-33 and MiG-29K were never designed as such, being heavily adapted from existing land-based high performance aircraft in much the same way as an F-15 "naval version" would be procured. I assume by "can't carry 2000lb bombs" you mean internally. Yes, the weapons bay is shorter, but that alone doesn't stop the aircraft being as capable as the A or C models. Guided weapons are progressively becoming more capable in smaller packages (ie. Brimstone, SDB, SPEAR3) and the aircraft has clearance to carry the latest iteration of Paveway weapons internally (Paveway IV) OMG did I listen....yes, I wouldn't be arguing otherwise. ROUTINE peacetime deployment will be with 12 Lightning II plus a whole range range of helicopters. Training scenarios and exercises always differ, focusing on developing different capabilities e.g. heavy assault missions with Merlin/Chinook, Apaches embarked for combat support, a small number of F-35 for fleet defence purposes or a full complement for a war-fighting scenario. You cannot say for certain that only 12 fixed-wing aircraft will ever be embarked for training purposes for that has so much scope to change based on the scenario. As regards sortie generation, again, see the above comment. The given figure for a Nimitz class carrier is a typical war-fighting situation whereby they will pack as many fixed-wing attack aircraft on ship as is humanly possible. Given a similar scenario a QE class vessel would never deploy, at least not in a situation whereby she had been re-tasked from a "training deployment", with just 12 combat aircraft. You don't seem to appreciate, either, that a ski jump cannot break down. American carriers can only realistically achieve high sortie generation with FOUR catapults. For aircraft getting into the air at by and large the same time. If one or two of those catapults breaks down then there is scope for a QE vessel to surpass that figure. As you can see, no, I'm not kidding you

Remember when Britain ruled the seas and the sun never set on the British Empire. A frail shell of their former self's now :/ To be honest I do worry a bit. During both world wars we had the alliance with the British Empire and today if we went to war with Russia neither Britain nor the rest of Europe is in any shape to assist an anyway but allowing us to use their docks, airfield's, and territory to store men and supplies. It's unfortunate but the British today are combat ineffective in a world war scenario. Also I've followed the F-35 from the day it was revealed and watched it win the contract on TV and while I still believe it is an outstanding Harrier replacement the fact remains it has never defeated a F-16, 15, 18, or the 22 and it's theorized it would not have beaten the F14. The aircraft was designed as a stealth fighter with VTOL capabilities, a harrier replacement. It is now being FORCED into the air superiority fighter role where it is not designed to be and not a single victory in combat trials. I feel like the F35 will actually handicap our air to air combat ability.

America couldn't have a more capable naval ally.

the name aircraft carrier by its name the most important variable is the aircraft... forgoing the catobar setup hamstrung the choice of aircraft to literally just 1...... so the whole project is based on the outcome of F35B as there's zero alternative should this aircraft fail to perform as advertised and those carriers will instantly downgrade to LHD

@ExistentialBadger

7 жыл бұрын

What F35B? I just see a ball of fire....

@sergeant64

7 жыл бұрын

He is referring to the flying brick.

@mihailosredojevic2925

7 жыл бұрын

ɷɷɷɷ Heeyy Friendssss I Have Justttt Wonnnn Branddd New iPhone 6s From visitttt : - t.co/4mmRpVeQ26

oh well, at least we have decent subs.

@patrickeh696

7 жыл бұрын

FAR too few of them.

@harleyokeefe5193

4 жыл бұрын

Max Holden and 2 Super carriers

What does the speaker mean at the end by "where the jets meet their best concurrency"?

I wonder if a small carrier , possibly smaller than the Illustrious could be developed to carry the next generation of drones as hunter killer/bombing and surveilance missions. The navy could have several, possibly cheaper and more effective than, the convential carriers.. They could be designed to be fast and perhaps operate with a smaller radio signature. Just a thought.

Had another go at listening to this guy on the video - still haven't quite grasped where he is coming from on the issues being talked about. On one hand he says the Brits have shot themselves in the foot, then, he goes on about what can be achieved with the cards the Royal Navy have been dealt. It took a while to realise the full potential of the Harrier and the Falklands war to really show what it was capable of. Surely, neither carrier has been commissioned yet, and, here we are, Job's comforters out in force, and, the armchair cynics sneering into their booze glasses and writing off the work of thousands of dedicated civilians and military personnel doing their level best to keep us safe from the world's malcontents. Carriers are mobile airstrips - no more, no less. It's what they are called upon to do that is the main priority, not how pretty they look, not how big they are - but to fulfil the planned agenda. If we Brits' have a fault - we are always at the cutting edge of development - that means ironing out all the faults - the other guys just watch us, then, when we finally get it right, without as much as a 'thank you', copy us and go on their merry way! How's that, the ungrateful sods!

Should have repainted the old carrier, what a waste of Tax payers money again

@rjk69

7 жыл бұрын

Would you like to give some details? A disaster that floats? The wrong parts?

@stupidburp

7 жыл бұрын

They should have been given LHA 6 and LHA 7 if they just wanted some new small mediocre carriers.

This video was alongside World of Warships videos and I initially believed they were bringing British carriers to that game

"it focuses on where the jets meet their best concurrency and not where their most military effectiveness is" ?? Can someone please explain what precisely he meant by this at the end?

@telclivo7945

7 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if i'm right here but here goes nothing. I believe it means that have a jet which can do many things, multi-role if you will, and not a jet that focuses on one area such as bombing.

@IamDeadly118

7 жыл бұрын

You are correct. Basically saying that a jet that has multi-role capability won't limit what they can do with it; instead of one that focuses on dog fighting will lack the role of bombing.

Basically it's shite!!

@Chickenworm9394

7 жыл бұрын

Money drainer

2:45: "Can beat Rafael". Is he talking about Wimbledon? Could it be he meant that French plane, the "Rafale" ("Wind Gust")?

@MH-ff6zr

5 жыл бұрын

He said that the F 35 could beat the rafale ( the french aircraft) But its not true at all. The F35 is like a sitting duck compered to the rafale.

@GowthamNatarajanAI

4 жыл бұрын

@@MH-ff6zr No. The F35 its is true 5th gen aircraft. Rafale is gen 4.5.

@MH-ff6zr

4 жыл бұрын

Gowtham Natarajan yes, your’ right, rafale is a 4.5 gen aircraft. But it doesnt mean that it cannot beat the f35. I talk about maneuverability, speed, payload, range and in some configurations, stealth. (Two types of stealth, activ and passiv : rafale uses both. )

@paulgibbons2320

4 жыл бұрын

Rafael really delivers for its cost. Losing one F35 would make the Navy consider pulling out of operations. They cost far far too much.

Historically Royal Navy is arguably the most successful and truly feared service of the UK military, yet in modern times it keeps making bad decision after bad decision and has been reduced to the point of national embarrassment. An island like the UK needs a large, formidable navy...

At least he was honest

why whats happening in 2020?

@darthbawbag

7 жыл бұрын

WW3 / war with Russia.

@downstream0114

7 жыл бұрын

I suppose it's just a sort of fancy deadline for acquisitions and renewal.

@jrobertsoneff

7 жыл бұрын

Always handy for invading Russia when it gets a bit tough piss off fast.

@gaz1415

7 жыл бұрын

its when the first of these two new carriers get launched into service

@youareajackass2005

7 жыл бұрын

i think its an arbitrary time frame. Just like how all freshmens aiming to get out of uni after four years (which is not true. lol)

British A/C Carrier . lmfao. they can't even maka a TV set nowadays.

Well, its not like they cannot build more, The United States operates 26 Carriers in total between the LHA's and the supers, It has the mothball fleet, which can come back into the fleet within relatively short time...

Didn't quite understand the comment about how we (UK) use carriers differently from the US and France. How do we use them differently ?

@manothewoods6759

7 жыл бұрын

BadtemperedandGrumpy expensively and inefficiently by the look of it

@nocensorship8092

7 жыл бұрын

Its more about making large expensive projects than using them effectively. thats the difference and its common for all European military forces.

@mikebox

7 жыл бұрын

Great question. It seems he was hopefully making a joke. But sadly, I believe he was being serious. Seems he himself doesn't agree with the DOD.

Very negative interview, I do not share the views of this arm chair warrior!

@stephenfgdl

3 жыл бұрын

what is your view then?

Incredible comments !! ... The British are even more defeatist than french ...(that I did not know) ! You go to have beautiful tools, a new type of aircraft-carrier does not finalize in 5 minutes !!! Ne vous plaignez pas que la mariée soit trop belle !

@joshuarosen6242

7 жыл бұрын

That is certainly how this comes across but you might also translate it into "The Government should have given us more money".

@allanmcewan8152

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe but when the fighting starts we dont give in and i am not even British I am Scottish.You French have not backed Scotland and yet we have lost generations of young men fighting for France in 2 wars.We still dont have our freedom. I think we will fight anybody next time maybe you

@kenonifty

7 жыл бұрын

Up there in Scotland they are still ins....

@occi31

7 жыл бұрын

You mean you lost men fighting for the United Kingdom or british empire. You didn't fight for France but alongside France. And what would we back? It seems most of your countrymen do not wish a full independence but to remain under British crown

@kenonifty

7 жыл бұрын

occiBK31 Up there in Scotland they are still ins... unlike you. All the best from Australia

The most important quality is that they have the capacity to fly larger numbers of aircraft than simply the twelve. Should a future government recognize the inadequacy of a dozen F-35b aircraft, it can mandate an increase by fiat. The biggest handicap was the devision to forgo the CATOBAR in favor of the much inferior ski jump configuration. Retrofitting at a later date will be hugely expensive, even if possible.

I didn't understand which is the difference between France USA approach to Carriers and UK one , could some one explain what he means in the end of the video?

So all in all the Aircraft Carriers are a total waste of money...

@J2897Tutorials

7 жыл бұрын

Until they're suddenly stocked full to the brim with a near constant supply of UCAVs.

@ptonpc

7 жыл бұрын

Perhaps if the government pulls its finger out and pays for the Taranis (and it's successors) UCAV or coughs up a tonne of cash for more useful piloted aircraft. Turns out the fancy F35 can be easily detected by radars using WW2 technology as they use a longer wavelength than modern radars. The Typhoon can also see it for miles and maneuver to shoot it down. The F35 has also had so many compromises in its design, to keep the weight down, that it is unlikely to survive any dogfight.

@J2897Tutorials

7 жыл бұрын

ptonpc Are you being paid by the FSB to demoralise the British military, or can you back up those statements with facts?

@ptonpc

7 жыл бұрын

***** This information is readily available. I suspect I have made the mistake of responding to a troll though. However just for the sake of completeness. I'll put a couple of links up here. Don't worry. I won't reply to you again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2?IR=T thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/

@dantaylor7344

7 жыл бұрын

Not total, the builders got paid.

take the planes off the carrier , then just load it with a nuclear payload and then drive it into a country at full speed

@monarchsub

7 жыл бұрын

that plan would never work!

@tommydangerx

7 жыл бұрын

Just load it with tea and crumpets.

@S1lverarrow

7 жыл бұрын

wont work if that another country also have nuclear misslies, and these day it seem like every country want to have few nuclear misslies for the worst scenario.

Question. Now that we know type 45 will not be able to operate in warmer waters. Who will provide the escorting duties for UK Carriers? French Navy or perhaps US Navy?

@alphadelta2954

7 жыл бұрын

The Type 45s will be undergoing a refit to correct the issue. By the time these enter service all the 45s should have been done.

@andron2348

7 жыл бұрын

You obviously hasn't been down to Regent park recently, the navy is experimenting with the new type 46 Pedalo, they SHOULD be ready for service with in the next thirty years, unless we have yet more cutbacks

The future use of an aircraft carrier should more geared towards unmanned aircraft and drones, so CATBAR may of future proofed it. But perhaps using unmanned aircraft would require a more fundamental design change. Would aircraft be controlled from the carrier/sister ship or land?

@killerbee8892

7 жыл бұрын

mightyfinejonboy unmanned drones wouldn't be a match for proper fighter jets

@rjk69

7 жыл бұрын

Not yet but they will do. The pilot is one of the greatest limitations in aircraft performance. Give it 20 to 30 years and we will see a massive shift.

Oh my... What a waste of taxpayer money.

Well, I am sure the original design for these carriers was a twin hull one and not the single hull type we see now? it was meant to be the worlds biggest aircraft carrier far wider and bigger than even the american super aircraft carriers! But budget cuts again shot down the orignal size to the single hull design? Shame as the two side by side hull idea would have made the carriers very wide and stable and made more room to carry and deploy normal jets without going down the VTOL path. Shame our wise uk gov dropped the world leading VTOL harrier jump jet idea we invented 30 odd years back, because those type of jets would been perfect for a down sized carrier design like we got now? and of course nice to know they dropped the hovercraft idea too that was also invented here about 30 years ago? Both of these idea of course the american then took up with delight and now have huge navy hovercraft carrying around their main battle tanks anf the harrier jump jets also used big time by them too! Oh what a sad state we got with the best tech we do is given away just when we should have kept it?

@MrTipperX

7 жыл бұрын

Colin Campbell so basically the carrier will be twice as expensive and half as capable as originally forecast? Nice work lads.

@jb76489

7 жыл бұрын

Colin Campbell its funny cause you think the harrier was a good plane Also I'd love to see some proof of the double hull carrier being seriously considered

@colincampbell3679

7 жыл бұрын

The jump jet harrier was the only plane which could out fly all others for 30 years due to the design thrusters which meant it could and did change direction in combat in ways no other aircraft of even helicopter could preform? Like can you tell me of any fighter jet which could fly almost fully backwards in mid air in combat and hover all with one jet engine and 4 vectored thrusting ports & stays balanced with excess air sent to the wingtip thrusting ports? Don't include modern main jet exhaust vectored thrust usa planes like the raptor as it was 30 years after the harrier and has to use two jet engines to hover one small one inside the body fixed in the down setting using two opening doors behind the pilot and the 2nd being the main jet engine which has a downward turning thrust effect by the vectoring unit! Funny thing is really, the americans love the harrier as they have not only used it for years but done better versions like a twin seat trainer! Just our silly government thinks it was passed it's time and let the americans have this world class jet?

@jb76489

7 жыл бұрын

Colin Campbell "Like can you tell me of any fighter jet" I'm going to let you in on a littler secret, the Harrier is not nor was it ever a fighter, its a ground attack/strike aircraft. It has been very occasionally used as fighter,thanks to american missiles, but that is not its primary function both in theory and in practice> and even in ground attack, its apparently "utterly,utterly useless" www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1529620/Major-attacks-useless-RAF-in-leaked-e-mails.html www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1530420/Typhoon-wins-gun-dogfight.html "could fly almost fully backwards in mid air" yeah,going to need some citation for that ever happening in combat buddy "the raptor as it was 30 years after the harrier and has to use two jet engines to hover " the raptor cannot hover you're thinking of the lightning II,not to accuse you being interested in being correct at all though "the americans love the harrier" why don't the use it more then? "our silly government thinks it was passed it's time" it would seem they're correct "let the americans have this world class jet?" seems fair for all the missiles and helicopters and rifles and jets they let you have Also, for all our sakes, could you please work on your grammar and punctuation

So, we've built two carriers that are very capable, but we've chosen to use them as HMS Illustrious' evening frock.

I don't understand that jibberish at the end, we prefer 'jet's best concurrency' not 'best military value' !!! What the...???? If it is not military value then what is it for? I propose that they be used for next generation of radio luxemberg

I liken these two carriers to magnificent scabbards with no swords. Thanks to Government interference, we have no aircraft other than helicopters. What is more the aircraft (if we ever get them) are American. Never ever rely on a foreign power for your key defence equipment, even allies. Britain has the brains and facilities to develop her own aircraft but, no, the government won't allow it. Apart from anything else it would give jobs to hundreds and help the economy.

@Nekcip

7 жыл бұрын

Why spend money on research and development of a whole new aircraft when america is already producing a pretty decent aircraft and have spent the money on it already. (I know someone is going to argue about me saying the f35 is decent, it is just needs some bug fixing :P ) But damn right about government interference, that's British politics 101.

@zacharyaltman3148

5 жыл бұрын

we don't have the money to make our own fighter, and we will carry fixed wing ircraft

Typical balls-up.

Build more and bigger

Shouldn't we be looking towards UAV-only carriers by now? Is there really a long-term future/need for manned aircraft?

A ship that big could use conventional planes which are cheaper, safer, and more payload than VTOL plane, plus can't vertical land with payload still on board, have to roll land, and if plane damaged it would be unable to land. Can't use a radar plane off the ship. The flight deck layout is poor. The Russians gave up on the idea and used huge SU33 planes with arrester wire and hook in the 1980s as do the French and Chinese. The carrier is a balls up like the type 45 ships with engines that don't work and this has the same engine design. sad.

British military is a huge mess

@garraz-bf3ui

7 жыл бұрын

JJMMMEAC We really are theres probably more generals then ships.

@hansgruber788

7 жыл бұрын

there are literally more admirals than ships

@nilsarildhovland7189

7 жыл бұрын

The UK started bombing the Middle East in november of 1915, and the bombing has been more or less ongoing. When will it be "mission accomplished"?

@spinaway

7 жыл бұрын

JJMMMEAC caused by the government.

@truthwillout.5035

7 жыл бұрын

please detail that explanation

Its a giant with a glass jaw!.......even a frog man can put that out of action !

I need this guy to be my lawyer. A few of us know why lol.

They needed these carriers during the Falkland war.

Now all we need is a battle cruiser

Considering the UK is an island nation you would think their navy would be more robust, this seems like a solid ship but it's roughly equivalent to what the US was building back in the 70's. I'm sure the UK and US could of collaborated to help the Brits cut costs on designing something more modern, at least for the incorporation of nuclear reactors. A ship as important as a carrier being dependant on a fuel source is a shortcoming. Also the lack of power will make it extremely difficult to incorporate newer more advanced technologies down the road. Which further shortens the service life of these vessels which lead to either a very costly overhaul of the carriers, or the UK will have to go through the trouble of designing and building an entirely new vessel all together. The new Gerald Ford class super carrier is expected to serve until 2065, I highly doubt the UK can make such a statement in regards to these carriers.

The decision to delete the C&T facility was a huge, huge mistake. It basically restricts the carriers to expensive heli' platforms. The F35 is a massively expensive, delicate white elephant. With C&T, the new carriers could have operated ANY naval a/c. Now, the carriers usability is WHOLLY predicated on the F35 - an a/c which is late, expensive - and especially in the STOVAL version ordered, of limited usability, with a very poor load-range ability. From the day the decision was made to delete the C&T's, is has been 100% INEVITABLE, that they will end-up having to have C&T's retrofitted. This is not so much about interoperability with our allies - but about the ability to operate non STOVAL a/c which are cheaper to buy, more robust, and most critically, offer better range-payload performance. What an utter fiasco.