Building Britain's Biggest Warship: On Board HMS Prince Of Wales | Forces TV

[@stormrunners8194]

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

[@benedictadonis8426]

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

[@connorroyce9975]

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

[@niuchajianfa6222]

lol

[@blech71]

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

[@Whalebarf]

What.

[@cartconrad4426]

Roger that

[@rswahn52]

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

[@dylanwaplington]

I live very close to there

[@leaturk11]

thanks, much appreciated comment.

[@iammoose4349]

This sort of thing fascinates me. What beautiful ships.

[@raywhitehead730]

Your beauty is a failure.

[@rossuk123]

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

[@belfastlad55]

Outstanding

[@Chris-vu1kh]

Beautiful ships

[@mizutani_]

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

[@mag1631]

Great job Britain!! Love from the USA.

[@terrybriggs6016]

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

[@ashleybishton742]

Prince of Wales has been completed. Ready for action now

[@ashleygoggs5679]

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

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

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

[@frank-ko6de]

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

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

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

[@frank-ko6de]

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

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

@@frank-ko6de absolutely.

[@Elis_LuFc]

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

[@chippledon1]

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

[@niuchajianfa6222]

lol can you afford it?

[@raywhitehead730]

Dim wit, look where the Brit Navy is now.

[@nicholaslin1630]

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

[@DokktorDeth]

Of course. No-one better.

[@JA19]

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

[@craigdorrian7391]

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

[@RichMantaray]

u are not an ally u are us :)

[@oscarmuffin4322]

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

[@rogerhazen3664]

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

[@raywhitehead730]

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

[@exexpat11]

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

[@phoebus45]

Just need the planes now.

[@jayseaem]

that was before Brexit happened.

[@shononoyeetus8866]

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

[@skylinecams7851]

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

[@StewartWalker-hy1eo]

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

[@IndyPlectrum]

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

[@borninjordan7448]

Yep. 36 F-35s in nine minutes.

[@douglastodd1947]

SORRY TO CORRECT YOU HE SAID 4 EVERY 2 MINUTES

[@adamsmohammed3780]

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

[@lachlanchester8142]

Wait until you see hms queen Elizabeth

[@derekheuring4646]

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

[@watchingthehawks355]

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

[@jayseaem]

@Intellectual Ammunition i agree.

[@_tertle3892]

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

[@frank-ko6de]

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

[@josephlezano7691]

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

[@nathankaye1577]

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

[@greenking333]

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

[@studmalexy]

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

[@henryvagincourt]

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

[@fisherking1863]

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

[@deeremeyer1749]

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

[@adamsmohammed3780]

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

[@dudeonyoutube]

Why you QE hate?

[@henryvagincourt]

Fleet carriers, good old day's.

[@thomasdemay9805]

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

[@James-dq7oi]

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

[@mk_gamíng0609]

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

[@davidputland5506]

mk gaming can you blame us?

[@CrazyNikel]

@@mk_gamíng0609 Actually on the contrary, the US would like Japan to build up more. Japans SDF has drastically increased in size and funding. They know what China will do to get revenge. China is crazy pro nationalistic atm.

[@alexb6821]

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

[@mrkojak-ci1zm]

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

[@ConfusedBlueDragon]

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

[@callumcastle5080]

absoutely

[@peterson7082]

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

[@marleycummins1675]

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

[@Ratty98]

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

[@t43562]

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

[@amandafranks5108]

This is vital to secure peace in the world.

[@ay0vee978]

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

[@mk_gamíng0609]

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

[@belesariius]

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

[@Deadeye-sj3qc]

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

[@pineli6752]

Agreed, the same goes for the Vanguard submarines.

[@randombritishguy2686]

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

[@Deadeye-sj3qc]

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

[@mercymorn4143]

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

[@marshalmontez6795]

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

[@elizabetharmada5335]

Huge

[@trinitite4617]

Elizabeth Armada thats what she said

[@valerie80yearsago90]

YUGE

[@wsladmiral8739]

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

[@imadadbestjobintheworld5259]

God bless the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines 🍺

[@shononoyeetus8866]

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

[@raywhitehead730]

Complete military moron. Look at the Brit navy now

[@emmy9345]

Gimme like an hour special on this, best content

[@morocconewsstarchannelmdd-7347]

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

[@mickeyklein6008]

They are very beautiful ships of war

[@yousskumar]

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

[@ChameleonThe13]

War toys ALWAYS serves only politicians...!

[@paulsteaven]

Their parliament always screw the Royal Navy after WW2.

[@davidbrisbane7206]

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

[@DokktorDeth]

Perhaps because politicians take the decisions to build the things.

[@tc9634]

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

[@5taunch]

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

[@rsdi_art]

Awesome

[@socratease1432]

Good stuff.

[@artiew8718]

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

[@uptoon8096]

lol

[@brothersg-s8087]

coffee od

[@waynecalder8615]

I love this man

[@erichall297]

Great work....love it.

[@northeastlower]

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

[@pommiebears]

Beautiful ☺️🇬🇧

[@NickyKDChaleunphone]

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

[@cool_cat007smoove]

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

[@oscarmike9613]

What about HMS Albion and Bulwark?

[@Spaceman9090]

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

[@socratease1432]

Cammell Laird 5:44, my Dad worked there.

[@guycrawshaw]

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

[@BaktasMIntrasWala]

2 Carriers means the empire stikes back😂🤣🤣🤣

[@watchingthehawks355]

My thoughts,Brexit means back to tyranny and authoritarianism

[@sausagejockyGaming]

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

[@greigsanderson]

You also have a jail on both ships. lol

[@socratease1432]

My father worked at Cammell Lairds.

[@kevinm3751]

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

[@ralphlouismendoza1977]

whats up with the ramp from nitro circus?

[@ralphlouismendoza1977]

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

[@jerbear3915]

Remember the time when Britain had more aircraft carriers than US

[@YARROWS9]

1943 I think.

[@DokktorDeth]

Why?

[@michaelfoulis7438]

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

[@theant9821]

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

[@bearsagainstevil]

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

[@luciusvorenus9445]

And she has that new ship smell, too!😁

[@deadlylizard1446]

RULE BRITANNIA, BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES ⚓️🇬🇧⚓️

[@deadlylizard1446]

Atlas what do u mean

[@22aj55]

BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES.

[@motey99]

Maybe after another 20 are built Britannia will rule the waves

[@danielhughes5932]

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

[@zakvince7425]

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

[@zipz8423]

Wonder how straight the keel is :P

[@harleyokeefe5193]

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

[@davster9853]

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

[@richardross5928]

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

[@davster9853]

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

[@kconradbh]

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

[@davidanthony8290]

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

[@conormcmaster1113]

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

[@Gar99]

It broken down on its first trip like the TITANIC

[@gregpineda8660]

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

[@gregpineda8660]

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

[@ciaran_telfer_18]

That naval guy at the start looks like he’s on constant cocaine. But also the carriers are magnificent. Rule Britannia! 🇬🇧

[@Spambmp]

Like the video guys and gals!!

[@bjjace1]

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

[@georgewest3787]

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

[@conormcmaster1113]

one is a man and the other is a woman

[@leudwigvonshwartsenhelm3624]

I'm glad England and USA are allies.

[@conormcmaster1113]

whats england

[@mohamedshelare153]

woow love it

[@dynaztycrashdiet]

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

[@Spaceman9090]

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

[@NoFaithNoPain]

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

[@Spaceman9090]

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

[@navnig]

What are the white strips on the lower hull?

[@Leo-pz5ge]

They should be a HMS Winston Churchill

[@berathajaya8020]

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

[@tomhermens7698]

Are they ready??? Costs???

[@commonsense31]

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

[@Alucard-gt1zf]

Common Sense exactly the same as each other just different names

[@chloejenkins1152]

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

[@lebeaulabuschagne9608]

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

[@seemopps]

just over £6 billion

[@seemopps]

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

[@billalhossainfrancis7685]

Nice

[@kameijohnwilson9208]

British should be the no.1 super power again😊 Dont mind americans!

[@mrutunjayadhikari3587]

lol

[@mrutunjayadhikari3587]

@Lann nou British super universe god power lol.

[@mrutunjayadhikari3587]

@Lann nou oh my god,UK will conquer the galaxy.Thanos is shaking with fear.

[@stormrunners8194]

@Lann nou and it will be great 👍💪 🇬🇧

[@ashellerainbarcena4319]

Oh yeah the PoW badge

[@geordiebatt]

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

[@geordiebatt]

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

[@1chish]

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

[@Agent-000-0]

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

[@1chish]

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

[@Agent-000-0]

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

[@nancyhobson9710]

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

[@randycheow5311]

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

[@toxiicwarfare9698]

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

[@taffyducks544]

HMS Bevan!!!

[@michaelfoulis7438]

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

[@yobaafett]

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

[@junxianwu1874]

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

[@ndr8469]

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

[@trevorfuller6393]

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

[@taffyducks544]

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

[@GroovesNZ]

Modern Western supercarriers are advancing so quickly. its crazy

[@DonMuffatello]

i don't get why they aren't nuclear powered

[@proudyorkshireman7708]

Grespino 1 if they were nuclear they wouldn't be allowed into certain ports

[@Andrew-is7rs]

Grespino 1 They dont need to be really. But cost mostly. Would have cost as much as two QE for a single nuclear. They nuclear ones still will need to either go to port or refuel at see for aviation/food in a time of war anyway. The Tidespring class are beautiful and state of the art RFA ships. So no major problem.

[@tesstickle7267]

Grespino 1 too expensive to make,refuel and scrap. This ship will run out of food before fuel. Plus alot of nuclear free ports all over the world ,this can enter ports.

[@jbx-]

Grespino 1 the main reason is cost, the uk government hates spending money on defence and will cut as many corners as possible to avoid spending more money. Defence spending is supposed to align with 2% of gdp growth but uk include pensions within that to reach 2% so in actual fact it’s more like 1.7% gdp, sad really. The uk has 2 bases in the Atlantic acsencion and falklands, it has Gibraltar on the tip of Spain, it has a permanent new naval base in Bahrain and has Diego Garcia in Indian Ocean, in addition the RN have RF Auxiliary ships which is paramount to be a true blue water navy. The main concern isn’t why is it not nuclear, it’s why do type 45 destroyers not work properly in warm waters and their engines fail? Why is there not enough frigates and destroyers? When is uk going to get aster BDM to defend uk airspace like France, when is uk going to trade brimstone to the French in order for them to trade us aster BDM, when is uk going to deploy evolved aster to include the Mach 7 speed to counter Russian zircon hypersonic missile?

[@aquillandscroll6428]

jb17x2222 - Not the best at info but I’m pretty sure the Type 45s were being designed during the cold war...*THE COLD WAR* Well I think,but if it was maybe the designers of the ship made it for cold waters such as near russia and antarctic waters.Either that or the designers didn’t see the warn water problem coming but many new things have their problems,look at germany’s frigates they have a whole lot of problems but I think problems are acceptable as we can learn from our mistakes.

[@fisherking1863]

DO YOU THINK THE CRUSADERS SHOULD HAVE HESITATED.

[@slippingjimmy2325]

not sure but they are a hell of a rugby team .. just sayin'

[@bulletproofkam7931]

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

[@tommybason6057]

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

[@gingerbaker4390]

The mighty Queen Elizabeth.

[@easyalpha1]

Cool

[@paulgibbons2320]

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

[@eamesaerospace2805]

I’ve been on that boat

[@JD-uh9od]

Wow

[@JD-uh9od]

Just looked up cost 3.1 billion

[@raphaelsmithwick4363]

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

[@ndr8469]

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

[@GH-oi2jf]

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

[@OmmerSyssel]

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

[@studmalexy]

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

[@TheWheels1965]

These ship are ready for the Politicians! thats a first!

[@tommysmith4952]

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

[@suddenlytitan739]

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

[@demanischaffer]

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

[@paulstewart7529]

politics

[@slippingjimmy2325]

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

[@neilgriffiths6427]

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

[@annemac8175]

My father was a survivor of the first one that got sunk.

[@toxiicwarfare9698]

He must've been very lucky considering only a few of the crew men survived

[@legendaryryan1623]

I like that statement at 10:08 "what they're going to provide is real influence/political choice to politicians"... when it comes to safety, especially with western standards not only with human lives but equipment that values millions of pounds/dollars, the only real choice is no, considering NATO's one imaginary enemy has openly stated it can track and shoot down these 'invisible' aircraft and the americans clinging tightly to the f35 program, not giving any 'wiggle room' for the countries buying it to utilize/change the software for their needs, with the added benefit of them not wanting to tarnish their reputation as masters of the sky, so almost every incident or (hopefully not) any loss of lives or equipment during any operation that they will either want to avoid or cover up would effectively make this 6billion pound warship like an Olympic 100m sprinter that just got his/her legs amputated.. and sure if we're talking about 'terrorists' then its all cool, you can park the ship in friendly waters then drop as many smart bombs from these high tech aircraft to kill maybe 10 guys with the total equipment value between them ranging from 10 sandals,turbans, a few smartphones, to a few AKs and a couple of bullets.. its a pretty decent way to shovel taxpayers money into that furnace that has been raging for almost 2 decades. its a step forward in the future I will agree but its quite easy to flex this muscle at an enemy who cannot flex a muscle back, but against a real enemy with the capability to actually do harm or destroy this vessel within moments.. the use of it in such a war would be severely limited, or using for intimidation against nations that have the capability to strike it and they don't.. well, co-operate with the 'bluff'..such a ship or fleet for that matter could be sent home with its tail between its legs. but having said all that the British navy has an awesome history and will most likely not fail to make the best out what they have

[@legendaryryan1623]

Sorry for not including more info It was long as it was, its obvious a carrier would/well should have a fleet with it, including submarines. attacking the carrier from the surface is almost never a good thing, the only real option is to saturate the whole fleets defenses with a mass attack of air and surface to surface missiles(which is very possible when the fleet is quite close to Russia), but if you know about submarines, there has been many wargames where a single 'enemy' diesel sub slipped passed all the escorts and scored multiple torpedo hits on a U.S carrier, france has done it,so has Canada even Norway. Even read a statement from a captain of one of these diesel subs that the one thing they are worried about is getting rammed by a nuclear sub, to them they are noisy and just plough through the water, on a side note some of those carrier 'kills' also entailed nuclear sub kills.. Almost a golden rule of warfare is never commit anything you cant afford to lose, I mean the u.s would be served a devastating blow if they even lost 1 carrier, the manpower, equipment, experience they had, the money that was invested in it, to even the morale loss of the entire military and even the country.. now a super high tech carrier that can hold the world's most high tech fighters is truly awesome, but there is and always will be a chance that something can send it to the bottom of the ocean. sure the u.k's military knows this and has debated it in length, I was previously just pointing out that against say Syria, if they know Russia isn't going to shoot back, perfect theatre for the carrier but in a full scale war against a highly capable enemy the usefulness of the carrier would be hampered by the policy of keeping it safe.. also by waste of money, yeah building it is expensive..but maintaining it? with its highly expensive fighter fleet, both you and I know I either of us wants to buy a Ferrari, sure its expensive..but keeping it running for years is the where you really are going to pay including insurance, with aircraft its even worse, its even more expensive but the maintaince alone bankrupts whole companies. a carrier is literally a show of force, all the stories of subs taking out carriers in wargames are normally covered up or told the sub did minimal damage, in the past 2 decades some of the world's greatest super powers have fought wars against countries that should never be able to defend themselves against conventional attack, happily enjoying air supremacy. whilst and let me be real here Russia and china have been advancing their ways to fight conventionally against the west, its not because they're evil empires or whatever , the u.s, u.k and many others have done the same, wargames against an OPfor normally consider to be Russian since the cold war started,only the last few decades since they've been fighting the unconventional fight which is literally advanced guerrilla warfare, they've been surprised by the modernization and efficiency of Russia and china.. besides Russia has been think tanking how to sink aircraft carriers for decades,.. I guess I'm typing a long essay for a reason and its that rule, never commit anything you cant afford to lose. if you pay attention in military circles they are debating whether tanks are even viable in warfare..a MBT literally have 1 purpose.. kill other MBTs, you can slap a few extras on it to give it other roles but at the end of the day its a big gun designed to kill something with an equally big gun, and experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria is teaching them some random guy in flip flops and a dress with the right rpg can burn that whole tank and everyone inside to a crisp, pretty sure the roman empire never expected that savages from Germania would ever unite to attack them, and the romans were crushed. point is warfare is always accompanied by great tragedy, the tide of battle can turn in a mere second because of one man's wavering courage despite all the plans laid out, one split second decision could decide whether this billion pound carrier with its billions of pounds cargo could sit at the bottom of the ocean or not despite all the protection and plans.. but knowing the royal navy I could doubt that would happen

[@songkwongyi7873]

The irony in the name is getting stronger the longer i keep reading the name

[@richardpoblador9177]

God bless Global Britain :=).