The British have always been trend setters when it comes to aircraft carrier flight deck layout. So nice that the British and US are such close allies who seamlessly share a substantial chunk of their military technologies and technology developments

@tomtdh4903

Жыл бұрын

Yep! Great alliances make the world a safer place. What people seem to forget is these carriers will be carrying 100’s of drones (sea and air) its just not talked about. Operational AI combat drones are probably already here, pulling 30g+ and with air tankers fight times of days. Nice to also see the nuclear sub deal with our cousin’s down under as well. Apparently the UK is looking too double its fleet of nuclear attack subs.

@waynemcfarlane1233

7 ай бұрын

​@@tomtdh4903: Really? 😢 the United States is a part of the British Empire?

@bpetey5970

5 ай бұрын

🇬🇧 🤝 🇺🇸

@FellaHAILIRA

5 ай бұрын

Great alliance it is but you need to stop begging for money, aid and equipment. It's been over a century that europeans have been floating above the water by begging Americans tax payers money. You need to fight your own wars. UK and Europe and been begging for the world and America money, man power, intelligence, resources and equipment since the 1st world war. Even in the current Russia-Ukraine war. USA has given more help than the whole of Europe combined. Why are Europeans so poor that they can't even defend their own country without resorting to begging?

@TheolastJedo

3 ай бұрын

@@tomtdh4903 The Royal Navy gets less money every year in comparison to inflation, Prince of Wales is probably gonna get cut in the next couple of years so it wouldn't make any sense for the Royal Navy to fricking double their Submarines

Very informative video. Thank You!

The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers were built for the F35 , they were originally built to have Catobar and apparently that maybe done on it's first refurbishment, the carriers can take fully loaded 45 F35b , and up to 12 Apache, 12 chinooks, not to mention its complement of Merlin helicopters. I expect the Catobar to be fitted so more aircraft can be utilised. Thank You To Our American Cousins for The First deployment .

@bobpage6597

9 ай бұрын

I understand the Queen Elizabeth class carriers had built into their design the ability to be refit 'easier' to a CATOBAR configuration should it become necessary. Some of the more recent reports floating around suggest they are considering using Prince of Wales as the carrier to make any changes to, the ability being to launch drones etc later. That being said, we don't have enough surface combat vessels. What we have is a fucking joke, and the idiots in Government one day may just well rue their 'more with less' attitude.

@sebastienleblanc2708

8 ай бұрын

I'd go fore f22 raptors or some Rafale s...

@sebastienleblanc2708

8 ай бұрын

How bout 2 Tiger copters with that...

@616CC

7 ай бұрын

@@calebjohnson6423it’s 45 in wartime

@jecos1966

7 ай бұрын

@@sebastienleblanc2708 F22 was not designed for aircraft carriers

I miss the INVISIBLE CLASS , it was so stealthy!!

@ScratchyYard

8 ай бұрын

think he meant the Invincible class which was tiny

@gregoryayscue2345

7 ай бұрын

It’s like they weren’t ever there

@jecos1966

7 ай бұрын

@@ScratchyYard It was a light carrier

HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales can hold up to 72 aircraft. But unfortunately the UK government is so tight that they only state 32 aircraft. The aircraft carriers only has 16 on bord mostly

@azazelzel6954

Жыл бұрын

That's what happens when succesive Governments waste money on useless crap, and over-bloated expensive public sector, that's also insanely WOKE... =(

@Benjd0

Жыл бұрын

To be fair, they had a set number of aircraft they wanted to operate - 36 F-35 and some helicopters, and then built the ship with this in mind. It was built so much larger than required for that number of aircraft so that flight operations can be conducted more quickly and easily.

@kickboxerforever00

Жыл бұрын

They have a compliment of 36 F-35's and as we speak they currently have 18 F-35's on board 10 being us marine corps and the other 8 are British

@rebelusa6585

Жыл бұрын

Yes, and it is no match for a big china navy.

@sovkhan4359

Жыл бұрын

@@azazelzel6954 yep that’s what happens when £60,000 goes towards BLT+ sandwich rainbow police cars 🤦🏽‍♂️ this country is owned by muppets….

4:30 I like how the previous class of carriers the UK had are now called the Invisible class instead of Invincible class.

Being a tier one contractor on the F-35's, we should be receiving them faster than we are!

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

Tell the MoD to get Parliament to actually cut checks as opposed to simply placing orders.

@Benjd0

Жыл бұрын

Part of the issue I believe was that earlier blocks would require expensive upgrades to bring them up to standard, and Lockheed Martin have yet to integrate some British weapon systems with the aircraft, so they're waiting for this to happen.

@vigilante3916

Жыл бұрын

F 35 B is the weakest of f 35 series less engine power, no gun, can carry only 4 air to air missile. Low speed, can't turn quickly. 🤣

@deeremeyer1749

Жыл бұрын

Try paying for them faster.

@Then.72

Жыл бұрын

@@deeremeyer1749 troll alert

0:30 that feels like a shot at the Charles de Gaulle. 😂

@metaljewelgaming

Жыл бұрын

It was, and it was a very good one!

3 times bigger than the INVISIBLE class 😂😂

@stephenbesley3177

Жыл бұрын

I know. I was going to say I had never seen that one. Laugh? I almost did.

@Kakarot64.

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenbesley3177 You're not meant to see it the Invisible class is the worlds most advanced stealth carrier, due to its top secret nature little is known about it but theres some speculation its actually a 25,000 ton submarine with a flight deck and capacity for 12 F35B lightnings and 4 helicoptors up to the size of a Merlin.

Yes, it’s “undoubtfully” a great ship.

@ScienceChap

Жыл бұрын

Undoubtedly? C one WS? And 284 metres tall? Elizabeth class? They are Queen Elizabeth class carriers... Invisible class carriers? I'm going with English not being the narrator's first language...

Every F35 made is 15% to 20% British Engineered.

These ship’s inability to embark a fixed wing AWACS platform coupled with the absence of a helicopter based AEW (Crows Nest) leaves them extremely vulnerable in a real shooting war against a capable enemy. Even the smaller Charles de Gaulle operated three AWACS, courtesy of her CTOL design. The Falklands War demonstrated the absolute necessity of equipping carriers with AEW platforms but over forty years later and with these huge warships in service, still no such capabilities exist. I would greatly fear for the safety of any RN vessels and their crews in the event of conflict, due to the glaring omission of so vital a system, undoubtedly denied by so churlish an excuse as the cost in terms of money. Our Navy and our sailors deserve better and they have been failed in this regard.

@MrJones-hy1vm

8 ай бұрын

You're overlooking the e7's that will be utilised In the coming months and the fact that if the RN ever go to war it would most likely be as NATO

@TheBongReyes

8 ай бұрын

Don’t worry. If war comes, I’m sure there will be a US carrier nearby yo provide AWACS coverage, midair refueling. QEII & PHW can provide additional air coverage with their F-35s. Synergy.

@frednoname3714

5 ай бұрын

NO HAWKEYE !! ( awacs) for carriers in far away mission = SUICIDE !!! Even very small french carrier has 2. ... VTOL VTOL = sold soul to F35 "B" and deadly Osprey ...royal navy sold to U.S !! What an historical mistake ! / SHAME ...payed for USMC VTOL and built VTOL carrier ..... 😢😢 UK invented catapult (catobar) and Y landing stripes.....😢😢

@frednoname3714

5 ай бұрын

​@@TheBongReyes even pocket french carrier has 2 hawkeyes ! And 1 rafale dedicated to refuel others in air before missions. Where does the US F35C and Rafale could Land on that..nowhere ..in this HORROR sh,t etc accumulations of mistakes....just call that an USMC. Carrier. Considered as "undersh t" even by USN ... no hawheye = SUICIDE ....

"Invisible class carriers"... new stealth technology, perhaps?

@AndyH2023.

8 ай бұрын

Invisible was the old carriers they was very small carries

@lukewalken1316

8 ай бұрын

​@@AndyH2023.Beats Invincible I guess

Loved the reference to the Invisible class in the last moments of the film! I do wish narrators would stop saying The HMS - no The please!

@sam.p12345

4 ай бұрын

I disagree. It’s grammatical convention generally to refer to an inanimate object as ‘the’, or ‘a’. You wouldn’t say you are are going to buy Ford Mondeo, would you?

@lestermay5878

4 ай бұрын

@sam.p12345 - one would not say The His Majesty’s Ship so one does not say The HMS! No serving or retired naval officer would say The HMS. As a retired NO, writer and naval historian, saying or writing The HMS just grates ...

@sam.p12345

4 ай бұрын

@@lestermay5878 Yeah, fair point. I guess the HMS bit already titles the object ship.

Don't you mean 3 times larger than the Invincible class rather than the "Invisible class"?

Powerful ! means Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA). making it one massive over the horizon threat that can see beyond its own ships sensors

The Prince of Wales Carrier says: Hi! Remember me? Probably dont, because I'm in drydock all the time

@cjjk9142

6 ай бұрын

Makes no sense as its literally in the atlantic right now after being on sea trials for months

@thwalesproductions

5 ай бұрын

It hasn't been in drydock for months

… when they work. Which mostly they don’t.

Those "American aircraft" are actually 15%-20% (depending on which exact model) British technology & British made. Much of the technology that went into the international design of those aircraft was what was planned for a speculative Harrier III, eventually cancelled in favour of the JSF program.

@rayjames6096

Жыл бұрын

The F-35 is wholly designed by LM. The UK canceled the Harrier in 1975, the US started the JSF program for a common airframe combat jet for the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines (hence the Joint Srike Fighter designation) in 1995.

@CtrlOptDel

Жыл бұрын

@@rayjames6096 No. Look it up. I’m not making the 15% British claim up. It’s clearly stated on the Lockheed-Martin website. Search for “F-35 United Kingdom” & the relevant page on their website should be the first result. Search for “F-35 BAE Systems” & the first result should be the page on their website that details the British components.

@rayjames6096

Жыл бұрын

@@CtrlOptDel That the UK has manufacturing contracts for components of the F-35 is widely known, all the JSF partners have those manufacturing contracts. Italy and Japan also have an assembly and final checkout facility for the production of F-35s.

@CtrlOptDel

Жыл бұрын

@@rayjames6096 You’re really insecure aren’t you… desperate to believe that things are the way you presumed they are.

@rayjames6096

Жыл бұрын

@@CtrlOptDel What are you talking about...the F-35 is identified as the Lockheed Martin F-35 because that's the company that designed it along with Pratt and Whitney for the application of the liftfan system to a P&W engine. The British have never even designed a 4th generation combat jet.

Just so everyone knows, former captain of QE, Jerry Kyd, stated the QE can carry up to 55 F35B in surge conditions, so he is completely wrong at 34. Sortie rates are faster than Ford class too

Advanced radar, it can't detect the stealth rubber boats departing from France though.

@simonbird1973

10 ай бұрын

Not it’s job, that’s Border Force responsibility

@abraham2172

5 ай бұрын

You know, you could spend your time much more efficiently if you would stop whining about the oh so dangerous refugees all the time.

@Kakarot64.

15 сағат бұрын

they know the boats are there how do you think the Border Farce finds them to roll out the welcome mat

They fly the F35B because the ship has no catapult. The Navy wanted catapults so they could launch heavier aircraft like the F35C. Parliament said No. So now they are stuck.

She is so powerful because of the crew that man's this great ship. Men and women alike. God save the King

So strong that it has to sit in the drydock

@robertewing3114

2 күн бұрын

HMS Victory is still in commission.

The lack of CATOBAR severely restricts the versatility of these vessels. F35-B are fantastic aircraft, but F35-C cheaper with a greater payload and range. The F35-B could operate from a CATOBAR carrier, and a carrier version of a domestically produced Typhoon carrier varient would have been good for UK industry and jobs. With talk now of already updating these ships to incorporate EMALS, and with the UK purchasing less than half of the initial number of F35-B so far, these aircraft carriers should have been fitted with EMALS from the start. HMS QE is now on its second tour, with a contingent of 8 fixed-wing aircraft.

What about the fujian

I read that the QE class can be converted into an Angle deck carrier just by removing the ramp and a few modifications and Bob is your uncle

@thwalesproductions

5 ай бұрын

Yes, the QE class carriers are built in mind to have space to add a catapult system and angling of the deck, that's why I think they have built areas in the deck which can be removed in a refit and fitted with catapults and to extend the deck

@bassetdad437

8 күн бұрын

I thought Angels would be pure VTOL.

@jecos1966

8 күн бұрын

@@bassetdad437 Here's a Boofhead who is more concerned about the typo than the comment itself.

The UK invented STOVL and the steam catapult system plus also started EMKIT which was the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System ! The British would never sail a nuclear powered vessel on the surface during warfare

If it doesn't break down.

Oh god that intro... such a seppo take

WHAT A NICE COMPLIMENT to the RN. GOD save the king

I dont think anyone has ever disputed the Royal Navy has the most advanced Ships, however the UK Government is so dumb regardless of which party is in power to actually fund anything.

AFAIK it is mainly in dock for repairs and design problems and no way ready for operations.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Overall height of 280m? You sure? Do you mean length

Should have 2 commandos carrier. And a third carrier king Charles. Each commandos carrier should have 600 royal Marines commandos. Boxer APC 30 platforms. Warrior APC support vehicle 8 warriors. 4 Merlin 4 shanooks Drone's. 4 F 35 jet's. This is for commandos carrier. 3 aircraft carriers would have 3 battle groups ship's protection for north sea Irish Sea and channel between Britain and France. Aircraft carrier can be complement to the 2 commandos carrier

Raffale Red Arrow fly by!

It's a great ship but they gimped it by not installing catapults on it. Maybe they could retrofit them with EMALS catapults at some point in the future.

@AndyH2023.

8 ай бұрын

They do have the capability to add catapults at a later date 🙂

@dnmurphy48

8 ай бұрын

Supposedly they are planning to retrofit them in the next few years.

@thwalesproductions

5 ай бұрын

The QE is built with that in mind to add catapults in a midlife refit

@Dyl-275

5 ай бұрын

Maybe when the tempest is built (if it gets a naval variant)

The f35 is not American, the UK build parts for them also It's a joint manufacturer kind of arrangement And the last carriers were invincible not invisible class... I should know I served on two of them

Glad the British are at least trying to stay in the carrier fleet.

@powerwise234

5 ай бұрын

They have better things to spend money on, like migrants and enforcing TV and knife licenses.

Close in weapon system CIWS (See-whiz) is the pronunciation not C1WS

@user-xk2fr3se3t

3 ай бұрын

Actually, we pronounce it phalanx, of which I was a maintainer. C wizz is a mericarn thang

Imo the qe class ships are the most impressive out there at the moment very modern built around the f35 😎🇬🇧

we need the the Queens royal seaguard a new fleet of great operational ships not to mention at least 2 more princesses this ships copies

But are they of any use. Haw many drones can you buy for the cost of them.? Do we have the ships to protect them or will we have to go out with US cover? Are they just as one Russian put it. Nice big targets?

@Jack0Young

4 ай бұрын

Why does it matter how many drones they can carry? The carriers themselves carry drones. No, the Royal Navy was let down when its Type 45 order was reduced. It doesn't affect the carriers ability if US navy ships are part of its escorts. In actual context of the oceans of the world.... its a teeny weeny tiny target.

I dont know why people say the UK navy is in decline. It has all the latest warships and technology and it's sailors are well trained and led.

@michaelpielorz9283

10 ай бұрын

And HMS THE LAST SHILLING and HMS DONATE US PLANES could now guard both sheeps of the Falklands or the Vice-King of rockall (:-)

@DerekGM6

9 ай бұрын

They are but there are not enough of them. Nowhere near enough to defend our island, our trade routes and remaining territories. We the British now prefer to spend our money on a ruinously expensive welfare state. Instead we like other countries in Western Europe expect the US to bail us out when it comes to a crisis. We might have two impressive aircraft carriers but they would be even more impressive if we had the decks lined with F-35s.

@jamesbryant8133

8 ай бұрын

​@DerekGM6 we were the only country in europe paying the required amount by nato towards its defence. America set up the situation where Europe could divert its money towards building a stronger country but it was allowed to go on too long. It was funny as hell watching the euro nations shit themselves when putin moved east and they had 'token' forces. Now billions have been put aside to purchase equipment for this 'testing time'. Arms contractors have been laughing and thanking putin for the past 3 years.

@dnmurphy48

8 ай бұрын

Too few too poorly equipped.

@metalogic1580

7 ай бұрын

they have 12 Frigates, 10 Submarines, 6 Destroyers and barely 2 Carriers in service... that's basically basically the equivalent of what the US dispatched near Israel at the beginning of the war lol, it's laughable. Sure, the ships are advanced, but they can't be everywhere

"Thales" is pronounced as "Talis".

And named after Queen Elizabeth. NOT Queen Elizabeth the 2nd…as most people think.

@jamesday1295

8 ай бұрын

HMS King Charles would've sounded pretty rough. Good timing.

So why didn’t they go with a flat deck and catapults? Heavier planes carrying more ordinance could be carried.

4:34 "Almost 3 times biggest than the 'Invisible Class' carriers" (?!) 🤣

@LordElpme

Жыл бұрын

Can't you see the obvious size difference between the two? :p

@cyanoticspore6785

Жыл бұрын

@@LordElpme they were called the Invincible class not Invisible

@LordElpme

Жыл бұрын

@CyanoticSpore 67 thank you captain obvious

@alexandercarder2281

Жыл бұрын

@@LordElpme 🤣😂🤣 captain obvious

@jesse8600

Жыл бұрын

These voice over channels are getting out of control.

At one time huge battleships were the most prestigious powerful warships in the world which is why every country wanted one and every other country targeted and sank the ones belonging to the countries that did have them. That's why nobody has battleships any more

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

"That's why nobody has battleships any more"(sic) Technology has rendered Iowa class ships obsolete.

@ScienceChap

Жыл бұрын

No. The expense of building and crewing a battleship in a world where no-one else had them was deemed excessive. The Royal Navy, which invented the Dreadnought Battleship as a concept built both the first (Dreadnought) and the last (Vanguard). They had a maximum combat range with guns of less than 30 miles, yet were vulnerable to air strikes by carrier borne aircraft from hundreds of miles away. The Japanese Battleship Yamato was sunk by aircraft from 11 carriers, which were cheaper to bulid and yet hit a lot harder and more accurately at a lot longer range. So a lack of likely opponents, vast expense (both to build and operate) and insufficient striking range with their primary armament rendered them obsolescent from 1930 and obsolete after WW2.

@Maxistanca

Жыл бұрын

/s

@lukewalken1316

8 ай бұрын

​@@AA-xo9uwlong range hypersonic missiles could render the super carrier obsolete

@adamsfamily4060

7 ай бұрын

​@@lukewalken1316Would any carrier survive an attack by 100+ drones.

The propellor is shafted again 🤣

@Jack0Young

4 ай бұрын

and?

@mrpoisoness5098

4 ай бұрын

@@Jack0Youngthat’s it. It’s shafted again 🤣

good luck

hmmm, whats the defence against supersonic missiles?

@LeeXRV

Жыл бұрын

I'm assuming you mean hypersonic missiles? Type 45's fitted with Aster 30 (Block 1NT) can shoot down hypersonic missiles. If you did actually mean supersonic missiles then any of QE's escorts can kill them.

@Willopo100

Жыл бұрын

@@LeeXRV nice. interesting stuff. are there any other defensive weapons against them/

@TheBongReyes

8 ай бұрын

Defense is called destroyers & frigates from it’s strike group.

I wish we’d purchase f35-a variants to protect our country Typhoons won’t be good enough in 10 years

@yournutritioussaladyt8029

Жыл бұрын

Thats why the UK is going to build Tempest jets for the next generation

@sparkiegaz3613

Жыл бұрын

@@yournutritioussaladyt8029 no they won’t shrinking defence budget the Uk economy is broken ,,,

@simonpitt8145

Жыл бұрын

I really wouldn't worry about it, they're still vastly better than anything Russia have got.

@simonpitt8145

Жыл бұрын

@@sparkiegaz3613 They'll find the money from somewhere believe me, they always do when it suits them.

@nathd1748

Жыл бұрын

@@sparkiegaz3613 Here Gaz you been sprouting shit on these forums for ages now and most of it was proven false.

Yup, truly the biggest, most expensive target in the inventory…

Before asking why, ask yes or no first plz😂

Pronunciation pedant here: you'll never hear the navy say "The HMS..." like the USS, because the H stands for His. Would you say "The His Majesty's Ship?" Be like saying "Please pass me the my coffee and the my car keys." Mind you, this video also says things like "Elizabeth class" and "Invisible class" so really, why am I bothering? 😂

Pity we don’t have any British made aircraft to use on British made ships. How much do we rely on the us? We can’t even resupply as we don’t have any ships for that, so if we fall out with the us we end up with a cruise ship

It was metal steel rotyth Dock

the 3rd one being built will be a bit bigger as will have 6 new catapults to be able to be more flexible in joint operations and the royal navy was given a list from US Navy to make the 3rd ship very advanced and with new lunch, and radar systems will complete the battle group still think we need at least 5

@paulgibbons2320

6 ай бұрын

Did not know there was a 3rd coming.

@dannybartlett4225

4 ай бұрын

@@paulgibbons2320 yep think will start after they replace the subs with Dreadnought class that will be finished early 2030s but could possibly be sooner with whats going on in the world at the moment. would help if the PM improved the spending like promised in 2024 that's still to be signed off.. its like they are waiting for something to go wrong before acting you would think after ww2 its better to be prepared then not. what do i no im just a grunt lool

@bassetdad437

8 күн бұрын

They would need to send out press gangs as they can't crew the ships they have now.

Such powerful and expensive ships!!! That can be sunk by 1 hypersonic missile

cant wait for it to show up in azur lane 4.7

They still have that ridiculous ramp on the deck. Get rid of that and put in the catapults.

@cjjk9142

6 ай бұрын

no need we use f35b

Would be powerful if they actually used it

The QE class doesn’t operate F-35 B’s because it has no catapult or arrestor gear. The ship actually has the infrastructure to (relatively) easily convert to a full catobar carrier. It’s more so that training Pilots for catobar carriers is insanely expensive and difficult. As well as having higher maintenance costs.

@twocansams6335

Жыл бұрын

Apparently the U.S was going to charge 2 billion to install the Electromagnetic system to launch jets, U.K said fuck it and went STVOL.

@joshuasenior4370

Жыл бұрын

@@twocansams6335 i think also at the time the US were still struggling with emals anyway.

@joshuasenior4370

11 ай бұрын

@@calebjohnson6423 yes you are right, typo. I meant the C

@TheBongReyes

8 ай бұрын

QEII does have F-35B. She can’t support F-35C. Alphabet is hard.

@lukewalken1316

8 ай бұрын

​@@twocansams6335where? On the ski ramp?

Good and healthy debate here without neg agenda-based morons and influencers with an axe to grind . Keep up the great work and bless

An overall height of 280M............................seems legit.

should hv ask the Chinese to build it and save 50% of the money spend. I think India may not even want to buy them from UK if it ever happens.

Quality over quantity that is the name of the game. I'd rather be in a Fleet of high quality Naval ships Then a larger fleet of poor quality ships.

If it’s so powerful why have they not sent it to the Red Sea?

Excellent carriers but would be better with missile defense like the American French & Italian carriers.

@jamesbryant8133

8 ай бұрын

There is no missile defence really beyond what you saw. Everything else is just wishful thinking. That's why ship to ship missiles (especially hypersonics) have got ship designers sweating. Have you seen the expected casualty figures if Taiwan turns hot? America is expecting to loses at least 2 carriers...... That's alot of sailors swimming home

@TheBongReyes

8 ай бұрын

Modern carriers don’t have extensive air defense capabilities. Unless you take into account it’s aircraft. That’s why carriers travel with a strike/battle group. Missile-guided cruisers/destroyers/frigates provide the integrated, layered air defense.

@juleswombat5309

2 ай бұрын

An Aircraft Carrier is always escorted by an AAW Destroyer. And we have the T45s.

Stuck in Portsmouth with not planes no crew no logistic ship !!!! 3 Billion of wasted money

Undoubtedly not Undoughfully, that is not a Word The 2 British Carriers are at least = to US Aircraft Carriers

Why does it look like a nimitz from below the aircraft carrier but it’s clearly not

@CtrlOptDel

Жыл бұрын

When you're trying to push a big, heavy, floating metal thing through water there're gonna be a limited number of optimal shapes. It's a bit like asking why nearly all jet airliners are basically the same shape.

@SPECTRE_ASF

Жыл бұрын

@@CtrlOptDel makes sense:) ty for telling me:)

They keep breaking down how are they powerful when you can not use them 😂

yes, the world wonders why (:-)

Pity it’s always breaking down

It isn’t. It lacks aircraft, organic self-defense capabilities & escorts.

Something to think about QE class, 65k tons, 7.6 billion, 40 aircraft (36 F-35's max.) 1500 crew GR Ford class, 100k tons, 13 billion, 76 aircraft 4300 crew Izumo-class destroyer - 26k tons, 775 million, 26 aircraft (24 f-35's max), crew 520. I don't know, "bang for buck". Those little Japanese carriers, Sure, can only carry 24 aircraft.... but crew and cost wize, you can easily buy 3 of them for 1 QE class, and still have money, and crew... left over. and being able to group 2-3 of them togeather when you need large strike wings... or spread them out when you need coverage is a big advantage... I'd love for canada to get 6-8 of them "donated" by the US to fill nato obligations.

@Benjd0

4 ай бұрын

They're definitely useful ships, although there's a number of cost reasons the RN moved away from more Izumo sized ships to the QE class. That 7.6 billion figure was for both ships, and 1600 is the maximum number of personnel they can fit aboard, their normal crew complement is more like 700. They used a lot of the additional space to add automation, so the ships can be crewed with a similar number of people to their older much smaller carriers. The quoted figure of 36 F-35s is also an artificial limitation, the RN had that number in mind during the design stages, but the ships were scaled up far larger than needed for that number to hit a specific sortie rate with that air wing. So it's unlikely they will go above that number, but if required it's estimated they could fairly comfortably fit 50-60 F-35, with a maximum load of something like 70. So the disadvantage is they can be in less places at once than a number of smaller carriers, but with fewer QE class ships there's less duplication of expensive equipment and overall less crew required for the number of aircraft being operated.

@simonschneider5913

Ай бұрын

contest of sitting ducks..

@jenniferstewarts4851

Ай бұрын

@@simonschneider5913 not really, consider 737,120,935 USD for 1 izumo, vs 12 billion for 1 Ford class. 1 ford = 4000 crew 1 izumo = 520 crew. So manpower wise, we go 8 izu's for 1 ford. (cost wise its about 10 izu's for 1 ford) 1 ford carries 75 aircraft, ususally 24 f-18's... 24- f-35's, then mix of other aircraft. 1 izumo carries 28ish aircraft, 24 F-35's and 4 other... So 2 izumo's =1 ford class for airpower... BUT... if you are fielding by size and money... 8 izumo's even going with 18 f-35s each is 144 F-35's... going with 10 on max, thats 240 F-35's. 240 f-35s is a force to recon with.

@simonschneider5913

Ай бұрын

​@@jenniferstewarts4851 in a real war, they wont even reach their intended area of operations - due to subs and the now extremely widespread and capable anti-ship rockets.. the era of uncontested maritime operations is over for NATO. with these carriers, the british probably bought the top, to use a finance analogy. look at what Hanwha for example is designing..they have incorporated all these thoughts in their concepts and future offerings. and they know how to build ships competitively.

Elizabeth is the most advanced while Ford is the most powerful.

@rayjames6096

Жыл бұрын

QE class is far less advanced as the Ford class is.

@CtrlOptDel

Жыл бұрын

@@rayjames6096 Dude, at this point your comments are just embarrassing, for you personally & America as a whole. It’s because of loudmouth people like you that America gets mocked across the world, not because of “envy” as you’d doubtless like to think.

@Stand663

Жыл бұрын

I’m just amazed the ford class has nuclear powered engines or did get the information wrong. ?

@CtrlOptDel

Жыл бұрын

@@Stand663 Nuclear powered naval vessels - not just American ones - have been around for a long time now.

@rayjames6096

Жыл бұрын

@@Stand663 The Ford is nuclear powered which the US invented for naval ships and then gave the technology to the UK, other countries like France and the USSR developed the technology also.

Rise and fall 😛

lol 😂 dear me, give me a US nuclear well equipped AC over these any day.

Too bad it breaks down all the time

Seems like a very good marine carrier like the WASP class?

@ScienceChap

Жыл бұрын

No.. QEC Is vastly larger than Wasps and is designed as a strike carrier, not an LHD.

@lisaroberts8556

Жыл бұрын

Similar to the US Marine WASPS Carries . However Elizabeth is bigger than their Marine Cousins. Also minus the Wel Deck for Amphibious Landing Craft.

@TheBongReyes

8 ай бұрын

QEII is much bigger. Capable of bigger air group.

@entropy5431

4 ай бұрын

It's considered a super carrier. So no.

A pair of very expensive, over budget White Elephants. The RN recently de-commissioned two ships because they couldn’t find enough sailors to crew them. The knock-on effect is there aren’t enough ships available to form an effective Carrier Battle Fleet. Neither carrier is going to sail anywhere without its protective escorts. Our servicemen and women have been let down badly by our incompetent Tory government.

Why The Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier Is So Powerful. Is this a joke? 🤷‍♂

it is a colossal waste of money, the age of the aircraft carrier is over, and they are too vulnerable. When airstrikes were taking place to protect shipping from Houthi attack, the planes did a massive 6-hour flight from Cyprus, because if they had brought an aircraft carrier close it would have been sunk by an anti-ship ballistic missile. Aircraft carriers are a relic of warfare similar to the Tank, this is the age of the Missile and the Drone.

With an air wing of around 8 to 16 planes its not so powerful.

Its not, doesn't have full squadrons of F35b's is not, cats and traps enabled, requires fuel that has to be carefully planned out in advance, in what way is this powerful ?

@Benjd0

Жыл бұрын

They have enough to fill it out a fair bit now with over 30 F-35's. Cats and traps would have been nice, but the F-35B definitely narrows that gap quite a bit compared to previous generations. Ships always need refuelling even if it's nuclear powered you need tankers to fill up on fuel for your aircraft all of your escorts.

Should have been 3 and should have been nuclear powered.

@PompeyMatt17

5 ай бұрын

nope...cannot dock nuclear powered vessels in UK ports

@JDUK71

5 ай бұрын

Interesting, so the Vanguard class subs aren't nuclear powered vessels? @@PompeyMatt17

Suggestion to the Royal navy: Scrap these two huge metal floating pieces of junk and buy the retiring USS Nimitz.

@Benjd0

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't make much sense for them, it would mean scrapping two practically new hulls in favor of a hull 50 years old nearing the end of its service life. So they'd require a lot more maintenance just to keep going, plus they'd likely need to refuel the reactors which is very costly, and they don't have the facilities to maintain them (This is the main reason they didn't build the QE class nuclear, the cost to develop brand new maintenance facilities capable of handling a nuclear powered ship of this size would be far too much. If they were going to spend that kind of money they may as well go the whole hog and convert the two QE class to CATOBAR. As it happens this may be happening, or at least partially for future drones.

If not for feminism, China had actually convinced even India to join S Africa and others to rejoin as ‘empire’, same head of State King, it settled for military alliance with Australia instead. Canzuk remains targeted by both dictators for life China and Russia longing to ‘the 5 eyes’ even violating law? Instead of just being the USN ASW protection, if UK, Cdn, Aus, NZ became one nation, one unifying parliament. The GDP would require 10 million jobs each to build maintain support the trade fleets and RN to protect them but unlike history another 10 million for army and airforce. You see Canada, for instance, it’s Chinese dictatorship prefering ‘frninidm n before all’ Trudeau wouldn’t be able to ignore military responsibility anymore. The US even floated the idea of Canada buying to-be-mothballed nucjear carriers refitted. Excluding America, thus Canzuk would re-open all British even Irish heavy industry and naval yards, fueled by the natural resources Canada and Australia would supply, and manpower. The US would remain the ground power of ‘Anglo-western Vic’ but the Canzuk would rival it nasally. And just the theory so pisses off Beijing and Moscow BOTH have guaranteed war if came about. So you’ll never see it come to pass after all. The biased news only reported once that the very first commonwealth(meaning British not French) leaders meeting gave Queen Elizabeth ‘official notice’, they didn’t allow them to force convert them to Christianity top down, we weren’t going to allow you to force feminize us top down either since feminizing your Monarchy, We will remain through King Charles as sworn oath, not ‘frninksdd’ monarchy thereafter. When Charles replaced, the British Commonwealth disappears forever. And with it what even Sino-Russo historians agree the first step to global govt rule a ressurrectrd British Emoire, with or without USA. I have to admit if not for your feminizing, even I would be been for it.🫢

"powerful" ?????? Im pretty sure you mean "powerfull when fighting alongside the usa" powerfull !!!

Three nails on the cross = $3Trillion. Star of David = $6Trillion. Holy Holy Holy = $3Trillion. Hosanna in the Highest = $1Trillion. Jesus Christ = $100 Trillion.

Not good to be reliant on US aircraft.

Americans and other creators of naval videos, please drop the "The" in front of HMS. It is like saying "The His Majesty's Ship..." or "The John Smith's wheelbarrow". It has been just HMS for at least two centuries. I know it is different in the United States Navy but then you do not preface the name of your ships in the same style, eg TPS Ronald Reagan. Imagine saying "The The President's Ship Ronald Reagan". To a British person it grates!

it looks like a ship made of legos

@jonwilko6305

Жыл бұрын

🙃

It's so advanced it has the ski ramp take off real advance

@modelrailwaynoob

Жыл бұрын

It is dumbo. That's why others e/g/ Russians copied it

@nathd1748

Жыл бұрын

It was either that or we waited another 3 years for a cats & traps system to be integrated. Research found that a ski jump was actually a good option.

@AA-xo9uw

Жыл бұрын

@@modelrailwaynoob The Soviets opted for a ski ramp because they already have enough problems maintaining and operating ships that aren't equipped with steam driven catapults. Notice that the newest Chicomm boat and the replacement for the de Gaulle will be equipped with catapults not a ski jump.

@Maxistanca

Жыл бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw u dont plan a ship for 2040s and make it a downgrade of ur current best ship do u

@Only1199

Жыл бұрын

@@AA-xo9uw yes but that’s Frances choice to have cat system.

Sell it 😂

So powerful? It's defensive capabilities are crap compared to some carriers of other countries.