Type 003 Fujian vs Queen Elizabeth - Aircraft Carrier Comparison

[@kw8435]

A fairer comparison would be between entire carrier groups rather than the individual carriers themselves. In this case, the Queen Elizabeth would become more of a joke with its pair of unreliable type 45 destroyers and type 23 museum ships. The lack a decent fleet air defence would leave the Queen Elizabeth threatened by even subsonic YJ-83s let alone hypersonic YJ-21s. Thus, unless the Queen Elizabeth is accompanied by "allied" escorts, it's own domestic fleet alone probably won't even survive the Liaoning battle group in a direct encounter

[@davout5775]

You give too much credit to the Chinese NAVY. A lot more than they deserve.

[@何俊杰-b9u]

@@davout5775 You will surrender anyway

[@davout5775]

@@何俊杰-b9u Who will surrender?

[@何俊杰-b9u]

@@davout5775 The people belong to the flag on your profile idiot

[@MMA-gb6to]

true, but i bet UK new carriers can beat shit out of Indian carriers

[@enzhus]

I don't think you should make this comparison at all. Fujian is at a class of its own, though it is still not as good as those US super carriers, but it beats any carrier from other countries easily. I think it's better to compare Queen Elizabeth with Shandong.

[@georgedang449]

Shandong has landing hooks. QE is in the same class as helicopter carriers, in both form and function.

[@jasek5267]

​@@georgedang449it was built for f35's are f35's helicoptors, so how is it a helicopter carrier.

[@overthewebb]

The Chinese propaganda is strong. The Chinese have created nothing and just copied and their training is utter shite in comparison. They have zero history of warfare

[@siberiantiger3917]

To be honest, at the rate China is building carriers, the Liaoning and Shandong won't remain active in PLAN for very long. I predict that they will both be retired and sold off to eager buyers by 2049. PLAN won't have non-EMALS carriers in its inventory by then.

[@siberiantiger3917]

@@jasek5267 The Japanese carriers weren't necessarily designed for the F-35B but they have been transformed by purchasing the F-35B from us. China won't have an F-35B equivalent for a very long time, if ever. So, their 076 compensates very effectively by having an EMALS runway. There is some talk that PLAN might even retrofit their 075 helicopter carriers with an EMALS catapult. Seriously, PLAN has so many surface warships now they can just operate the 075 as part of an amphibious task force so there would be no need for the 075 to have its own fighters for self-defense.

[@jamesbond8961]

In China, people only compare the 003 to the Ford class, they don't even remember the QE ship

[@prima7853]

UK is a fUCKUP country.

[@chumleyk]

It's probably closer to the USS Enterprise than Ford. Lots of catching up to do. China has absolutely no practical experience in this and everything they have done is emulation.

[@RadicalFloat_95]

I actually genuinely agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and this world actually genuinely needs more people actually like you in this world and you actually couldn't have said that actually any better than me lol.

[@Farzan4741]

coz these two are same alomost size. Fujian will be far superior to QE in terms of size, tonnage, aircrafts carried, EM catapult for fujian while the other one is stobar. fujian hass three EM catpult and QE can launch one at a time. sortie rate will be much higher for fujian. Ford has nuclear power projection whilst fujian has conventional.Ford has four EM catapult. these two are only superior to Fujian

[@RadicalFloat_95]

@@Farzan4741 l actually agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and this world actually genuinely needs more people actually like you in this world and you actually couldn't have said that actually any better than me lol.

[@simonyip5978]

The RN has 2 carriers, but only 19 surface escorts (6 x DDG and 13 x FFG) and a limited number of AOR and other auxiliaries needed to support those 2 carriers. In order to build, man and operate these 2 vessels, the RN has had to skimp on the rest of the fleet, in terms of numbers the Royal Navy and RFA are on a downward projectory, with the number of vessels, personnel, aircraft etc getting smaller over the last few decades. The PLA Navy has 3 x carriers and 3 x medium sized LSH helicopter carriers (which are actually much bigger than the previous RN Invincible/Illustrious and Ark Royal carriers that were replaced by the Queen Elizabeth II class). But the PLA has 150+ x modern DDG/FFG/FSG, not to mention the 40 x new Type 055/052DL/054A destroyers and frigates that are currently under construction or on order). The same is true for the submarine force, the naval aviation force, the amphibious fleet, coastal force and support/training/logistics branches of the PLA Navy. The RN is unlikely to see a new CV carrier for at least 30-40 years and is struggling to man and operate the 2 that are currently in service. The PLA Navy is expected to build 3-4 new carriers in the next 10 or 15 years, as well as a similar number of large LSH type medium carriers, and the carrier fleet of China is expected to grow rapidly in number and also capabilities. So basically, the RN will struggle to man, maintain and train and deploy its 2 carriers, with it's 19 x major surface escorts, and even the number of aircraft available for the Queen Elizabeth class is limited in number. By contrast, the PLA Navy already has 3 full sized CV carriers and 3 medium sized LSH helicopter/VSTOL carriers, and 150 modern surface escorts with another 40 new DDG and FFG due in the next 5-10 years. China hasn't had to sacrifice the number of other types of ships and equipment, in order to afford it's 6+ CV/LSH carrier fleet, very different to the situation that the RN is currently in.

[@Cravendale98]

@@EurasiaNaval Because it's working together and coordinated whom we have shared interests with, it's not that difficult to understand really, they threaten Taiwan which is a sovereign democratic country, China is also claiming and militarizing large parts of the South China as well as intimidating it's neighbours

[@Frost-01]

@@EurasiaNaval What it lacks in Military strength can still be made up for in terms of influence and the fact that its operating with multiple other nations who have the similar views. That aside you cannot also forget the fact that China broke the agreement between it and the UK in regards to Hongkong which is equivalent to a humiliating slap in the face for the UK. Lastly we also cannot forget that it may indeed lack Military power but its one of the countries that possess a nuclear weapons, that in itself in the biggest scale can indeed matter.

[@simonyip5978]

My point is more about the difference in the relative decline of the UK and the Royal Navy, and the rapid growth of China and it's PLA Navy. The Fujian is just the 3rd carrier for the PLA and is likely to be followed by several more advanced and capable vessels in the near future, but the Queen Elizabeth II class could well be the pinnacle of Britain's naval power and ship design and building abilities. And it's by no means certain that the Royal Navy will need or even be in the position to be able to operate, deploy, maintain and crew new carriers when the QEII class are decommissioned 30-40-50+ years from now. The next Royal Navy carrier could very possibly be a joint European project, and it's not impossible that these 2 huge ships will not be replaced when they are taken out of service.

[@ENGBriseB]

@@simonyip5978 The UK in 2021 was the third largest Global defense spender in the world. Only China and America spent more. 17th Feb 2022 forces dot net. Until 25th of April India moves into thrid place because of an overspend. New data shows that the UK government is the world's second biggest arms exporter behind the US. There's only 68 million people in the UK. But Britain has over 3bn allies.

[@Frost-01]

technically aren't the QEs the result of what was supposed to be a Joint EU project?

[@gelinrefira]

The EMALS actually has more range of weight it can launch. Which means not only can it launch heavier aircraft like cargo or early warning, it can also launch lightweight drones.

[@JD-dm1uj]

Exactly, it’s a huge advantage for expeditionary warfare.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Yes, but the F-35 and British helis don't need EMALS.

[@ENGBriseB]

Another 3 year's wait. But both the UK carriers will be fully loaded with new Aircraft F-35B Lighting and And New Apache 64E attack helicopters. New wingman drones.

[@johnbodman4504]

It is just better in every way.

[@gelinrefira]

@@johnbodman4504 Except that it is heavy, very expensive, complex and needs a lot of power and industrial and technological know how. But yea, other than that, better in every way.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

I believe the British were a careful to not have an underperforming air wing. As far as I can tell there’s no limitation in lining up aircraft to takeoff, as they were doing with less stable Harriers on smaller carriers as see in this video (4 Harriers line up to take off from the Ark Royal.MOV). From sources I have read QE2 can maintain sortie rates as high or higher than the Nimitz class, and up to 3/4 the sortie rate of the Ford class, though I don’t know how it would compare to Fujian, as surge rates on CATOBAR carriers are more sustainable over an extended period of time, so I won’t make any uneducated guesses.

[@cosmoray9750]

According to Jimmy Carter 1979. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKTSgoOYiq6UbKs 🤔

[@Knight6831]

15:50 yeah not at the moment but will likely add EMALS for drones once the EMALS works reliably You need to consider that the British Royal Navy is hesitant to use unproven technology until it is reliable

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

In the QE Carrier midlife refit is to have them convert to full sized CATOBAR type.

[@rayjames6096]

QE class has no electrical power generating capability for a fighter rated catapult launch system. It barely generates enough electricity for operations as it is now.

[@thepymes]

You don't need EMALS to operate 'drones'.

[@thomaszhang3101]

The advantage of a single island vs two is that you leave more space for the flight deck. This may seem insignificant, but if you take a look at the actual usable space on a flight deck for storing and moving aircraft (aka removing the take off and landing portion), you will find that the space seems much more limited and any increase seems a lot more significant.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

It would have proven troublesome had it gone with a CATOBAR and angled deck, but doesn’t interfere too much with its current layout.

[@ENGBriseB]

At just over 4 acres the flight deck is plenty big enough. The hanger size is 510 ft by 110 ft and up to 30 ft high. Penalty big enough as there's 2 Aircraft carriers. With a 3rd Aircraft carrier on it's way. With plans that will come together around 2025

[@rayjames6096]

​There won't be a third UK aircraft carrier...the UK built these two on the cheap and still can't afford to put an airwing on even one of them.

[@Zfast4y0u]

@@rayjames6096 yap, this is poor mans choice.

[@謝元-o2d]

謝謝！

[@EurasiaNaval]

謝謝朋友的支持!

[@JYF921]

Queen Elizabeth is the top tier flagship carrier of all the countries who think that an F35B will solve all their deficiencies in constructing true aircraft carriers.

[@MMA-gb6to]

i think UK should develop its own next generation Harrier jets, it would be more reliable than F35

[@daniel26964]

@@MMA-gb6to the F35 is a joint development with British and American components, i dont think it makes a huge difference.

[@Nitroaereus]

@@MMA-gb6to If Prussia was an army with a state, then the modern UK is a nursing home with a state, and well on its way to being a completely destitute satellite of the US. I wouldn't expect anything like that level off innovation or industrial output from that particular country going forward.

[@cosmoray9750]

According to Jimmy Carter 1979................. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKTSgoOYiq6UbKs 🤔✌

[@seraphx26]

@@daniel26964 The Brits cannot produce their own F-35s despite the joint development, and the F-35 is still a turkey, they should reject it and build their own, don't hedge your bets on America being your protectors forever it is a nation well into decline and won't be around in any meaningful way by 2050 or so.

[@BokehEffectABC]

A recent continuous patrol by the Qeen Elizabeth lasted for about 7 months. How do you compare the Liaoning, Shangdong, and Fujian on patrol endurance?

[@川流不息233]

够用

[@danielch6662]

The Chinese carriers are never going on patrol. They only have to cover their single coastline, as they do not have distant far flung territories to protect. Don't expect them to be going on a jaunt to Australia or South Africa. What if they're suddenly needed back home when they are on the other side of the planet? Takes a long time to hustle back home.

[@No-timeforimbeciles]

0004 Fujian IS nuclear powered & under sea trials right now !

[@JD-dm1uj]

There’s just no comparison, IMO, the PRC not only have a better carrier with the Type 003, they have vastly superior battle group compositions when you break it down, the 055, 054 and 052 classes are just so far ahead of what the UK has. In terms of raw naval power, there’s the US and the PRC, then everyone else, very far behind. I don’t foresee that changing over the coming decades, India and Russia just aren’t going to get there, they’ll have pockets of excellence with particular platforms and weapons, though it won’t be to the same scale, Japan and South Korea have exceptionally capable regional navies, though again, they’ll never project in the same way. I expect the both nations to come out swinging with their next offerings, the DDGX and the Type 055a are likely going to be the top two ship classes in the world over the coming years.

[@seraphx26]

Russia will get there eventually if it wants to, once they have all of Eastern Ukraine seized which is going to happen, their ship building capability is going to be formidable and their economy is going to enter a boom as the eastern economic coalition picks up.

[@m1a2_sepv4_abrams]

@@seraphx26 but the industry of ukraine was almost destroyed after the crack of cccp. ukrainians even are not able to produce destroyers.

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

You are getting ahead of yourself. What are we actually seeing here? We are seeing a deck without any kind of launch system aircraft. Even the tower hasn't been completed as you can see into it. As things stand, China has not been able to demonstrate the ability to deploy a real carrier group far from it's shores. Sure, the Chinese naval build up seems impressive but nobody really knows how capable they are. It's a mistake to just look at the numbers too. The UK's offensive naval policy has always been it's tried and tested hunter killer SSN's. Just as they sent the Argentine Navy back to port on day one, that is what they'd be looking to to to China in a fight by sinking a capital. China's biggest issue against the UK is going to be a lack of naval warfighting experience. To put it another ay, the UK can deploy it's navy on China's doorstep but China cannot deploy it's navy on the UK's. That is the real difference between the two navies

[@seraphx26]

@@StevenSmith-mk5fg China isn't building it's naval power for blue water conflict that's what people like you don't seem to understand, they are building for regional power projection and in that regard they have succeeded enormously. Of course people should not make bold predictions either way until the capabilities are demonstrated, but some people seem to think that this is China from the cold war and that everything they make is junk or massively behind the West and I don't believe this to be the case presently. I think if China is still behind in any way it is in terms of experience, it's one thing to build modern military equipment like carriers and jets, it's another thing altogether to have operational experience with strike groups and to have top notch piloting, these are key areas where America is still in the lead. Additionally I would wager that China still doesn't have the same precision machining when it comes to advanced engineering that America has which also plays a part in durability and keeping maintenance cost down in the long run. China has made incredible progress however to even build such things as the Type 003 and the J-20/J-35.

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

​@@seraphx26 I've heard people say this but the entire point of carriers is for blue water operations. It makes zero sense to have your aircraft on a carrier close to your coast when you can just use land bases/refuelling aircraft. A carrier is a juicy target for nuclear hunter killer. China has definitely come a long way but she is still a way off of challenging the US/UK on the high seas. China is easy to beat due to her Achilles heal and this is how just the UK would do it... Around 80% of China's energy comes through the Indian ocean. There's a couple of choke points there. The UK would not attempt to engage China one to one in a video game like combat where you fight till the death. We'd simply cut off the choke points with nuclear submarines. The US is like the UK only 10 times bigger lol. This is a huge problem that China understands and it's why they don't want the Aussies getting hold of SSN tech People tend to see warfare like a kind of game where the actors are all robots following a script where they fight until the last man. This is not how it works though. Phycology is a huge part. During the Falklands for example, the entire Argentine Navy was crushed within a single action. The sinking of one of their capitals was enough to send them back to port. And back then, they had a credible navy so it was two fairly even matched navies gong head to head bar the killer advantage of the nuclear sub for the Brits. I hope it never comes to it ofc but if I were to bet, I'd bet on the Royal Navy simply due to their SSN technology and experience/naval tradition. That cannot be bought or made. The US is even stronger. But you are right, China has made a lot of progress over just twenty years.

[@robertnemeth6248]

The F35 do not have to land vertically on Queen Elizabeth as they can do rolling landding that enable them to take larger loads back to the ship. The do not need to use or dump weapons to return to land.

[@IrishCarney]

You keep emphasizing the F-35B having to do vertical landing, but the British have pioneered a rolling landing approach for it that expands options and flexibility. Also, while vertical takeoff is rare and comes with even more fuel and range costs than the ski jump, they could have several F-35Bs take off straight up, simultaneously or nearly so, thus exceeding any catapult carrier's launch rate if that was the priority at the moment

[@danielch6662]

@cjjk9142 yet, the USN choose to have F-35Cs on their supercarriers instead of the F-35B. Don't you ever wonder why the F-35Bs are so wonderful, why did the USN choose to go with the F-35C? They could have saved so much money no developing a C variant, and just simply use the B.

[@fareschallah6773]

I’ll keep it short and sweet mate - great vid as usual - but I hate the design by the UK- it isn’t a super carrier that the fujian class has the potential to turn into - this aircraft carrier IS the pinnacle of UK ship building capability and I think that’s all I need to say when it comes to the actual class itself compared to 003 and what is after the 003 Furthermore the complete complementary air wing is much more expensive for the QE as the F-35 is and will be much more expensive then the J-31/35 + the J-15 which makes the fujian much more cost effective Lastly the fujian class would have a better sortie rate based on the layout of the design and it is only the beginning of China carrier program whereas the UK will not develop and build another carrier for at least a decade

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks man, another insightful comment

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

STOVL can sortie faster than CATOBAR, or don't you know anything about Naval ships?

[@fareschallah6773]

@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming 3 Catobar assisted takeoff lanes - the ability to lift heavier planes such as the KJ-600 AWACS as well as the larger hanger and the much better flat deck rather than our QE split deck means I stand by what I said - STOVL is great but the plane is 5-7 times more expensive than the j-35 and considering our need to send our carriers towards China for deterrence - it isn’t very good when the Prince Philip Carrier can’t even leave the harbour without damaging its propeller blades + what’s the point of a carrier with F-35s which isn’t nuclear powered - it’s limits our ability for a sustained deployment whereas the Chinese CV-18 will never leave Chinese waters so it doesn’t matter that they use conventional engines as well + the future CV-19 (2025) will improve on this design and the 005 aircraft carrier (Cv-20) will be their nuclear powered carrier - should be built by 2027-2030 - all are based on this design So yes our carrier is garbage compared to china’s and our future carrier project has no interoperability based on a common design - our next carrier will be completely different from this current split deck design which I still don’t understand + why do we have 2 islands on the flight deck for no real reason…

[@sklell1622]

And the world said ..no country can travel 11,000klm and win a war ..🤫

[@richardwills-woodward]

A lot is going into submarine and unmanned aircraft technology. The UK is at the cutting edge in this area. We are simply in a transition. A lot of money is being spent around the world on equipment that may only be viable for the next 10-15 years or so.

[@nostradamus2642]

In reality, the QE (should it appear in the SCS as an aggressor) is more likely to be greeted by a YJ-21 hypersonic missile armed 055 DDG or a land based DF-21 or DF-17 than the 003. Carriers in this day and age are sitting ducks. 🇨🇳 should not over invest in carriers beyond 5.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I haven't quite decided where I stand in the debate on the usefulness of aircraft carriers. The reason why I have not considered them to be vulnerable is because they are intended to be heavily guarded. The question for me is whether it is worth the risk to put so many eggs in one basket.

[@nostradamus2642]

@@EurasiaNaval ASBM and Hypersonic missile changed naval warfare for all capital ships overnight. Even supersonic ASCM has changed the game. Note in Nov 2021 the 🇬🇧 boasted HMS QE task force tracked 2 Chinese 093 SSNs until Global Times revealed the 093s were a couple of hundreds of miles away where ASW sensors couldn't possibly have detected them so far away and that the 093s deliberately surfaced to make a point after launching a successful mock attack on the QE using YJ-18.

[@zuongzi1519]

@@nostradamus2642 talk about being toxic lol

[@zhe8586]

It depends on who your adversaries are. It would be unthinkable to pitch the Royal Navy against the PLAN in any situation in the foreseeable future. But the QE battle groups can still probably handle the threat from Argentina, which is probably one of the Royal Navy’s key roles.

[@nostradamus2642]

@@EurasiaNaval In the 1980s, 90s, the only possible (extremely unlikely) way China could sink a 🇺🇸 CVN within the first island chain is a lucky antiquated WW2 vintage U-Boat Romeo sub (laying in ambush and undected by the whole task force) and getting a dozen lucky torpedo shots at very close range. With DF-21, DF-26, DF-17, the same CVN can be tracked, targeted and destroyed from thousands of miles away defeating the fleet defences with minimal warning. YJ-21 and YJ-18 armed 052D DDGs together with numerous Su-30MK2, J-16 and JH-7A is also a game changer. When Clinton sent 2 CVN groups a quarter of a century ago, the PLAN best capital ship was the Luda with hand operated 37mm mounts and Silkworms. The mainstay of the PLAAF was extremely short legged J-6 with 3 cannons and J-7 with primitive ranging radar armed with 2 AA-2 (1st gen 1950s vintage Sidewinder). If those F-35s are as bad as they say, the 🇺🇸 has already lost air superiority in the 1st island chain.

[@chrisho5550]

So many unknowns regarding the Fujian. And after so many years, still in port. Only after the sea trails and more adjustments etc, before it be combat ready. And that will take a some time!

[@tomk3732]

Its not even close - British are very heavily outclassed in technology and in size.

[@richardwills-woodward]

Not in technology. The UK is at the cutting edge in this regard. China is nowhere near the UK's technical capability.

[@agusedyanto3324]

@@richardwills-woodward your opinion is right but that was when your grandfather was young bro..lol

[@richardwills-woodward]

@@agusedyanto3324 Nope, that is today. China doesn't even have mid-level technology. That is why they import all their manufacturing machines from Germany. They couldn't even manufacture a ballpoint pen until a few years ago. They are stealing IP on a mass scale precisely because they don't have what they need.

[@user-uc7kg4wp7c]

@@richardwills-woodward？There's not even a catapult, what do you call a lead?

[@richardwills-woodward]

@@agusedyanto3324 It's not even a contest. China's systems are already failing across the board.

[@theredbar-cross8515]

Never mind a comparison with the Fujian, the QE can't even compete with the Indian meme carrier. Damn thing has one runway, no arresting gear, no deflectors. It's a joke.

[@davout5775]

QE is built around the F-35 jet. It doesn't need catapult system. It will only add cost and maintenance. F-35 is the bets fighter in the world and thus QE will win against 003

[@MMA-gb6to]

main purpose is to defend Malvinas when shit happens, so it's good enough

[@zuongzi1519]

@@davout5775 F-22: Am I a joke to you?

[@davout5775]

@@zuongzi1519 F-22 is still technologically inferior to F-35

[@zuongzi1519]

@@davout5775 technologically inferior doesn't necessarily mean it's not as good

[@cresem]

please comapre type003 to US ford. QE is in the lower caregory

[@robertnemeth6248]

No the UK carrier would be able to launch more planes faster than the Chinese carrier as they could line up one after the other on the runway and just keep taxing on. The Chinese carrier would need to use slower catapults. The one after the other F35 launch has already been demonstrated on QE. Also the F35 can take off vertically from anywhere on the deck if required. So the Chinese carrier would be slower at launching fewer aircraft.

[@lutztech]

Wow, that Type 003 is sweet!!!

[@Strategy_Analysis]

Thanks for this @ENI. Agree with your assessment that the Fujian is a better aircraft carrier. However, and I know you mention this in the video, it is a little unfair to compare these 2 as the Fujian is a CATOBAR carrier and the QE-class are STOVL carriers. QE-class has a very good deck area considering its overall dimensions, which allows for more aircraft than might otherwise be available for a carrier of its size. I have said in my own briefing that the QE-class is the ultimate example of a STOVL carrier. With all the Pros and Cons that go with that. While separate from its carrier role, a key design requirement for the QE-class is to be able to operate in an amphibious assault role through its rotary-wing assets, including the large CH-47 Chinooks. As far as I know, there is not yet an official program to develop an AEW&C version of the Osprey. This is unfortunate as this would have a great deal of potential. What is the next video on?

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks for your informed comments, SAC. There are relatively few aircraft carriers around compared to other warships. Therefore, I think carriers are very unique so long as they belong to different classes, and a carrier comparison video will nececessarily run into the understandable critique that they are built for different purposes, requirements, doctrines, resources and budgets, and so on. A better framing of the purpose of this video might be to explain the differences between the two carrier classes, rather than a pointed assessment of which is the better ship. I have to confess part of my motivation is to respond to certain comments that are either uninformed or trolling - telling me without any justification that they'd rank Type 003 below the QE, and even the Cavour. I felt like I need to make a video explaining why the 003 is on a different level than the QE. I also agree I should have considered the QE's amphibious assualt role. I didn't know there is no AEW&C version of the Osprey, but my scroll through the UK defence forums showed many commenters suggesting that the Osprey is a good fit for the QE (although by no means a universal sentiment, for reasons in my video). They must have envisaged a modified Osprey, which should be feasible.

[@Strategy_Analysis]

@@EurasiaNaval No worries, all good. I didn't know you were being trolled, but this does happen. I have said in my briefing that I believe that 003 Fujian will be the best aircraft carrier outside of the U.S. nuclear-powered Supercarriers, and that is quite the achievement. It provides the platform from which a substantial Air Carrier Wing can be employed form. I agree, an Osprey-derived AEW&C aircraft would be great, but at the moment it just isn't going to happen.

[@musa7010]

Sir the Catobar is NOT catapult assisted take off BUT arrested recovery it is "catapult assisted take off Barrier arrested recovery😅 BARRIER not Butt😂 Also QE and Prince of Wales go out of order alternatively. Their propeller shaft and reduction gear break down faster than repairing speed of British shipyards. PLA carriers don't have this problem.

[@johnrusac6894]

The US Navy chose the V-22 to replace older COD systems for one reason: it can accommodate the large diameter of a replacement F-35 engine. How will the UK get engines to their new carriers?

[@magnaviator]

QE is more like a helicopter carrier comparable to the type 75, no?

[@mac2626]

The Queen Elizabeth class is 65,000 tons standard displacement and, although she has never sailed with a full complement of aircraft, armaments and stores etc. is a projected 70,600 tons full load displacement.

[@jasons44]

USA/U.K ship yards are needing to build up production strength in case of War breaks out?

[@johnsilver9338]

Apparently QE has the fastest sortie rate, even faster than Ford or Nimitz or any other catapult based carrier. F-35Bs can just do an elephant walk like with any other fighter aircraft do in land, as it can take off using lesser runway. Also don't need arresting gears to land so it also has the fastest recovery rate. Harriers were also able to do it on a smaller carrier. Only took 50 seconds to launch 4 of them. [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJOai5-Qd6mje7M

[@johnhoffman9413]

- fastest recovery rate - I sugest you go watch a video of a F35B landing, it takes about 20 minutes, then watch a F18 land on an american carrier, takes about 20 seconds.

[@johnsilver9338]

@@johnhoffman9413 Doesn't even take 20 minutes. [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWnNiZellKamlZY [2] kzbin.infoxAcu4I3307s

[@jin-wn9lx]

Vertical take-off and landing efficiency is not high, but it is so unique that Britain has built a separate aircraft carrier for him.

[@johnsilver9338]

@@jin-wn9lx F-35Bs don't do vertical take-off. Instead they do short take-off from a shorter runway and can even do it in beast mode. Landing it is also more efficient as two or more can land simultaneously.

[@Knight6831]

14:58 that is a lesson likely taken from the service of the invincibles

[@oLevLovesLove]

Strangely the QE class has gone backwards and abandoned basic aircraft carrier innovations like angled flight decks and arresting gear that would not affect STOVL operations. Rather it has commited itself to STOVL technology working perfectly to launch and recover its air wing. Any technical issue with transitioning the nozzles to hover mode means the aircraft is a write off even if it can perform a normal landing.

[@mateboy4167]

QE = a biggest LHD

[@setantii298]

@@mateboy4167 without a dock

[@thepymes]

Any technical issue with the catapult and the aircraft needs to be recovered from the bottom of the sea. It happens. What's your point?

[@jamesdu2044]

Crowsnest isn't even a PESA, it's a mechanically scanned array... Has zero chance of picking up LPI sweeps from AESA equipped enemy fighters, and coupled with the helo's short range/ceiling/endurance it's not relevant in a fight between 1st tier naval powers. The extremely short endurance of the F-35B prevents them from being used as ad-hoc AWACs as well...

[@IrishCarney]

I think the QE class is better compared to the Liaoning and Shandong. Mid-range ships of more modest ambition. Ski jumps and helicopter support aircraft

[@fabricemartin5561]

From France we quickly understood that this Fujian was superior to our Charles de Gaulle CVN which only has its nuclear propulsion to challenge the Chinese Fujian. The latter is designed to operate in the second chain of islands or the Indian Ocean with its incredibly robust escort (type 055 heavy destroyers of 13,000 tons & 112vls, destroyers of 7,500 tons & 64vls, ASW frigates of 6,000 tons & 32 vls or 4,000 tons & 32 vls, submarine sailor type 093b & 18 or 24 vls, complete supply ship type 901 of 48,000 tons and type 903a of 24,000 tons). The escort of our French flagship is made up of a very efficient submarine but without vls, 1st (destroyers) and 2nd rank frigates equipped at best with 32 or 48 vls and a tonnage ranging from 4000 to 7300 tonnes with PESA radars 1 to 2 generations behind the very large galium nitride AESA of Chinese warships.

[@jwickerszh]

I guess the dual island helps with the inferior point defense systems, but it takes up a lot of space.

[@robertnemeth6248]

There is on,y one runway but as F35 can take off vertically several could be launched at once if required.

[@crypticgaming9618]

I wish we British went for the CATOBAR in the beginning, typical labour cutting costs on our military, but new ideas means it could and may become a CATOBAR Carrier with an angled flight deck

[@crypticgaming9618]

at maximum the QE class can have 48 f-35's and 6 helicopters, but that is pushing iit, but also in a war scenario that is what we would do

[@johnbradshaw4963]

Thank you for your strategic comparison. Why not nuclear power plant on the Chinese carrier? Does this imply a less effective mission radius for this large vessel?

[@xuepingsong5329]

1.More expensive 2.Not needed as much for reginal power projection which is China's aim 3.Chinese thinking is from incremental improvements, they might want to perfect a conventional carrier before a making a nuclear one 4.Most importantly the gdp spent is less than 2% on the military compared to the close to 5% of the us so they can't really do it very quickly all at once.

[@johnbradshaw4963]

@xuepingsong5329 Thank-you for your detailed response. I have one last question/observation. My understanding is that the latest electronic defensive suites are highly power intensive. Is this a possible vulnerability in the type 003? Thank-you for your very courteous, complete and timely response.

[@xuepingsong5329]

@@johnbradshaw4963 No worries! You are correct, the type 003 has more power constraints compared to a nuclear version. I would suggest watching this channels video on the type 003 for more information regarding its power system, which should be able to dynamically adjust its output for different systems based on real time requirements, making it more efficient and that less of a concern. It’s also a possible reason why the Chinese opted for the more advanced and expensive second gen EAMLS compared to the US which theoretically has a lower power consumption. This is I suppose is an intrinsic weakness of non nuclear powered carriers whose detrimental effect would depend on the situational requirements and the design and efficiency of the carrier.

[@johnbradshaw4963]

Thank you for detailed responses to my questions. In this difficult time your candor and friendship is much appreciated

[@btarunr1]

VTOL aircraft means that QE has practically infinite launch positions, and can put aircraft in the air faster in a surge.

[@robertnemeth6248]

The 997 is AESA and very capable, the 1850M is very capable especially against stealth targets. Not to mention that the carrier will always be in company with a Type 45 destroyer with an AESA 1045 radar.

[@manhuang6922]

2022年9月英國航母又要入廠大修，恐怕要2023年底才能出港

[@alfredawomi2340]

@22:53What Exactly do you mean by, "Like Type 003, Queen Elizabeth also have Two Deck Edge Elevators on the Starboard side" as when The Queen Elizabeth was Made and Launched by Great Britain Year's and Year's ago unlike Chinese Type 003 which have not yet even Completed it's Trails and Tests let alone fully Operational and the Crew's familiar with it. Thus, how should you have used The Words, huh!

[@wangXuquenwang]

单比航母是不行的，海战当中，两个航母战斗群是集群化对抗，也要对比一下双方的驱护舰艇，潜艇，舰载机等

[@eiblia6772]

“Angry Karen Class” carrier is more like it. 😂

[@Waywind420]

Just my opinion The Type 003 will be the better aircraft carrier and by quite some distance (although the Elizabeth is currently operational and well-crewed and the Type 003 is not). If the UK convert their carriers into CATOBAR (like the PA2 carrier design) it would be a similarly capable ship. Type 003 could carry up to 85 aircraft Elizabeth class carrier could carry up to 70 Still the Type 003 looks like a real nice bit of kit.

[@michaelkendall662]

I would match the UK aircraft type against the Chinese junk any day

[@JunchengWu-x4o]

@@michaelkendall662英国飞机好像是美国的😂😂😂 英国已经没实力制造飞机了✈️

[@zackz7675]

You should do another video regarding the project Ark Royal and SRVL

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

The UK's offensive naval policy has always been it's tried and tested hunter killer SSN's. Just as they sent the Argentine Navy back to port on day one that is what they'd be looking to to to China in a fight by sinking a capital. China's biggest issue against the UK is going to be a lack of naval warfighting experience.

[@johnbodman4504]

I think that most of the UKs sailors with good experience of aircraft carriers will be retired or dead. The Fauckland war was forty years ago. The UK navy will still have records of the war which will be better than nothing, but not as good as real experience.

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

@@johnbodman4504 In terms of real carrier experience, there just isn't any. The Falklands was probably the last time carriers were part of a real competitive war but thy didn't do a lot. The Americans have shot down some Iraqi space cadets and bombed some Afghans with them but that's about it What the UK has is the institutions that draw from centuries of war fighting experience in general. This is shared wit a few contrives lie the US ofc as they have exchange programs. These institutions is how they retain the tradition. Th UK for example, is the only nation to have every used a nuclear submarine in real warfare. China's last combat experience was in the 70's against India. Before that, it was the 19th century opium war I think. China just isn't a fighting nation. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying China is a push over but if I had to bet, I would bet on the UK in naval conflict

[@johnbodman4504]

@@StevenSmith-mk5fg China is not a warlike country, however it has the resources to fight and win

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

@@johnbodman4504 The West has huge resources dude. 20 carriers, over 50 subs etc. The combined defence budget of the West is 6 times that of China's. The US naval air force alone is the 2nd largest on the planet. The only air force bigger is the USAF. The US/West have bases spanning the globe. Warfare is a very complex endeavour involving many factors. Take the naval part of the fight in the Falklands for example. Argentina had a credible navy with carriers, subs, destroyers etc. All it took was a single action (the sinking of the Belgrano) and the naval war was over in an hour as the Argentine fleet retreated to port. I don't think the West would chose to engage China in the South China Sea though. Their ships would be within range of China's missiles. How they'd do it is by crippling China's trade. 80% of China's energy comes though the Indian Ocean. Just a hunter killer or two there and you effectively strangle China economically. China is aware of this achilleas heal ofc.

[@johnbodman4504]

@@StevenSmith-mk5fg I understand what you are saying, but China has enough subs to do the same to them. As well as that, America needs China's trade, they would weaken themselves without it and give Russia a chance to even the score with their subs, which are state of the art.

[@robertnemeth6248]

Catapults have a slower launch rate then a ski jump equipped carrier.

[@meiyixin1988]

But one unfair thing is that 003 is still under construction, and QEZ is already in service at end of 2017. so 003 is 6 years later than QEZ. 6 years can change a lot of things.

[@dyong888]

6 years will mean a lot of change for the PLAN. For the brits, it will mean they will be poorer.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

Not really, QEII still dont have reliable escort ships, and its air wings dont have enough F-35B yet. The ship it self also had several issues, including water leaks from main shaft. UK not going to get any new carriers at least before 2040, but China will build at least 2 more before 2030.

[@dyong888]

​@@qiyuxuan9437 China has several dozen 054 destroyers and several state of the art 055 destroyers. 5 Type 054DL destroyers are being build simultaneously in one shipyard, not to mention Carriers, LHDs, and other classes of ships being built elsewhere or in other shipyards. The anglos i.e. the amerikans and the british have no way to match the quality and quantity of the PLAN. Meanwhile, J-20 fighters and DongFeng series of missiles are in full production. The DongFeng series of missiles are varied and numerous. If you look at the big picture China's military position is getting stronger everyday and getting stronger FASTER than the anglos can. In other words, China is overtaking the anglo imperialists in military power. If the anglos are stupid enough to start a war they will loose big time. Of couse China will want to maintain peace for development.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@qiyuxuan9437 1 Type 26 frigate has already been built and 2nd is half built, all the Type 45's have been upgraded from Aster 15 to Aster 30 missile. If we take hypotheticals than UK's Type 83 destroyer that has hypersonic capability will enter the chat.

[@yttean98]

Two islands provide redundancy, with the readily availability of Hypersonic missiles, redundancy is not much of an advantage. My argument: When the carrier(so expensive) is within range the enemy can launch 10 Hypersonic missiles at least one of them will hit bullseye.The total price of Hypersonic is a fraction of the Carrier.

[@johnbodman4504]

Missiles have improved to the point where aircraft carriers are redundant.

[@ENGBriseB]

With over 4 acres of flight deck on the HMS Queen Elizabeth class carriers and two control towers. Which can take care of the carrier navigation and one for the Aircraft movement's great peace of Engineering. Especially when there twin gas turbine engines they will be able to work if one is damaged in the event of action damage.

[@yttean98]

@@ENGBriseB hit at right spot it will sink first before the second turbine takes over.

[@ENGBriseB]

@@yttean98 same for all ships but the way it was built is excellent. It can take a hit and still run. Look China good at building buildings. But the UK and America have been building Aircraft carrier's for nearly 100 years.

[@ENGBriseB]

No comparison when the Elizabeth Class carriers gets it's full procurement of F-35 Lighting jet's. Queen Elizabeth class is always escorted by a Astute-class Nuclear submarine which are the best of the best.

[@robertnemeth6248]

Yes the Queen Elizabeth may be smaller but we have two of them...

[@tvgerbil1984]

It is strange not to do much comparison of the propulsion systems of these two very large ships.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Fair question. I guess I omitted it because they are similar on a high level

[@qiyuxuan9437]

​@@EurasiaNaval Not 100% sure, but Fujian is likely using steam turbine, while QEII uses gas turbine. Both has pros and cons. Gas turbine can start up much quicker, but its not used as common on very large ships. Steam turbine has been used on carriers for a really long times, even U.S nuclear carriers still using it, they just replace heavy oil boiler with reactor to generate steam, the turbine part is pretty much identical. In theory, China can convert 003 design into CVN by swaping out boiler and fuel tank with a reactor on future ships.

[@williammak8484]

Both are very different class of aircraft carrier for an example Fujian is flat flight deck whereas Queen Elizabeth Class is Ski jump flight deck.

[@robertnemeth6248]

The AEW Merlin is fully networked and can talk to F35 and ships. It can pass targets and control fights with no problem.

[@Harry-lw4dm]

There is absolutely no comparison between the two aircraft carriers. The QE is just a toy that kids don't want to play with.

[@wstj4240]

Fujian is a CATOBAR CARRIER (Catapulted assisted Take Off & assisted Landing) similar to US Navy and French Navy Carrier , while Queen Elizabeth is a STOBAR carrier (short take using ski jump which reduce the take off load to 65%) . Queen Elizabeth STOBAR CARRIER IS SIMILAR to LIONING * SHANDONG STOBAR carrier. Please inform properly to those who do not know and not deviate.

[@kalui96]

I have such a hard time getting used to seeing that Queen Elizabeth launch ramp LOL I think the biggest difference between them is their experience levels. Above all else.

[@thx1138sixnine]

Neither carrier crew has any combat experience against another navy or even against a real air force. A comparison of carrier flight crew training hours in simulator and using live equipment might be relevant? Flight hours & simulator hours for pilots might be the easiest starting point But the rest of the air operations crew is important: deck personnel, flight ops, AWACS coordination, sensor suite fusion, S & R, etc.

[@StevenSmith-mk5fg]

@@thx1138sixnine This is true to an extent although the UK can draw from it's tradition e.g. naval academies with centuries of war fighting experience. Put simply, this would be the first time in China's history that it has fought n the oceans. The UK has been doing it for over 500 years. There is a genuine gulf in experience there. Comparing carriers is somewhat of a moot point as what matters is the overall system anyway. The UK's offensive naval policy has always been it's tried and tested hunter killer SSN's. Just as they sent the Argentine Navy back to port on day one that is what they'd be looking to to to China in a fight by sinking a capital. China's biggest issue against the UK is going to be a lack of naval warfighting experience.

[@georgedang449]

QE's crew weren't alive back in WWII, so they have as much experience outside simulator and mock war games as anybody else. Even if they were around back in WWII, naval warfare changed, so their experience with the Model T is as useful as with the English Longbow.

[@BikersDoItSittingDown]

@@georgedang449 You could say the same about the Falklands war. The Royal Navy had no experience since world war 2 but were still able to travel 8000 miles with less men and kit and WIN Maybe you put this down to luck instead of passed down experience and training. A country who under-estimates its enemy is going to end up embarrassed. Look at the Americans in Vietnam. They had far better technology and hardware and under-estimated the enemy to their peril. Putin is doing it now in the Ukraine.

[@georgedang449]

@@BikersDoItSittingDown Actually, the Falklands war is a lesson in something else, has nothing to do with "experience." The French put arms sanctions on Argentina, and suddenly they have no support and resupply for their Mirages. When they ran out of the couple of antiship missiles they had on hand, that's it, Argentina lost their only means to hit Royal Navy ships in any meaningful way, and with it, the war. It has to do with hardware, not meatware. Many nations has since taken this lesson to heart and diversified their arms suppliers.

[@骑士骑士]

In fact, the two ship islands of the aircraft carrier queen are not good designs... Because the two ship islands have independent radar and command systems, once one of them is destroyed. The remaining one cannot use the radar system and command system of the destroyed ship island.. What the two ship islands can do is that after one of them is destroyed, the remaining ship islands can command the fighters to return and escape the battlefield.. There is no other way..

[@ENGBriseB]

Queen Elizabeth class carriers have a flight deck of over '4' acres.

[@thepymes]

You are aware that the UK MOD will shortly begin trials of the General Atomics Mojave RPAS, right? Why do you think they would begin testing of an RPAS system that: a) enables take off and landing from non-CATOBAR carriers and b) has a similar STOL wing and tail kit that can be applied to the MQ-9B SkyGuardian (aka RAF Protector RG1)... the RPAS that the UK is accepting into service right now! Interestingly the MOD has only ordered an initial tranche of 16 of the planned 20-24 airframes, leaving an option to buy MQ-9B STOL airframes... Watch this space.

[@thepymes]

CONFIRMED: HMS Prince of Wales will test the launch and recovery of MQ-9A Mojave RPAS during the Westlant 23 deployment which set sail today (01/09/2023). She will also test SRVL, EV-22B Osprey (both flight envelope expansion) as well as other RPAS systems.

[@gelinrefira]

The RN has been naming their ships like that for a long time. Really the only ship that lived up to its name was the Warspite, because it was one of the most tenacious ship in the fleet with a crazy service history.

[@EurasiaNaval]

True, the Royal Navy tends to re-use warship names, although I have to say they don't recycle names too frequently. In fact, the Invincible light carrier is the first warship using that name since 1916. I guess with 50 odd years having passed, this was not too soon... haha

[@IrishCarney]

The RN has had many very boastful ship names. Inflexible, Indomitable, Victory, Aggressor, Arrogant, Vindictive, Vengeance, Brutus, Unsparing, Conqueror, Devastation, Malice, Vendetta, Dictator, Gore, etc etc

[@ronrogers6942]

The Americans had major teething problems with their new catapult systems . The Fugian is a First of Class and will likely take 5 years to get it working at Designed levels . If the New Carrier didnt have challenging teething problems it would border on a miracle. The Carriers in time will be an impresive piece of kit. The British have had at least 2 years to get the QE 2 and the POW in order . Its worth considering.

[@danielch6662]

The 003 catapults are electromagnetic like the US EMALS, but they are different. We just don't know if they will have the same kind of problems, or entirely different ones.

[@EvaExplores-x2x]

There is no comparison: one is a supercarrier and one is a STOVL carrier little more than helicopter landing docks. China can field a larger CVBG, STOVL fighter performance is limited and 1 of the 3 variants to be obsoleted the soonest, no AWACs and limited electronic warfare. The QE is not going to dare to face any CATOBAR flattops head on.

[@drianhodgson]

Ha, ha, ha, ha ...... fujian would be sunk very quickly by astute class, the invisible warriors!

[@EvaExplores-x2x]

@@drianhodgson For every astute class there is like 8 equivalent ultra quiet Chinese diesel subs ganging up on it. Speaking of the ultimate delusions lol.

[@mohan4114]

RN are constrain by budget and USN that don't permit RN to grow, in fact RN had shrink to few boats since WWII.

[@ENGBriseB]

No the defense budget is going up in the UK. The UK in 2021 was the third largest Global defense spender in the world. 15th Feb 2022 'forces dot net'. And plus the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Only China and America spent more. Until 25th April 2022 India moves into 3rd place because of an overspend. The UK under Boris Johnson 19th Nov 2020 agrees a £16,5bn surge in defence spending each year. Plus Elizabeth Trust has already brought forward that if she was to be made Prime Minister 19th July 2022 The defense spending would increase to 3% GDP by 2030 and she has vowed to look at the UK and the size of the Armed forces. Elizabeth Trust is quite a bit ahead in the polls.

[@williammorley2401]

@@ENGBriseB , well it was until Liz Truss just wasted £30 billion and increased the UK's budget deficit massively.....

[@awu92]

After WWII, superpowers were USA & Soviet Union, now only USA left. UK already lost her leading position since 1945….. With only 60 millions population & limited budget, do you expect an super aircraft or an aggressive space program from United Kingdom?

[@owbvbsteve]

How about the French Carrier and this? How about the 002 vs the QE2. Maybe the 003 vs US carriers? Maybe the Ford?

[@niweshlekhak9646]

The Ford is way more powerful than 003, one is nuclear powered, has laser weapons installed and has SM-3, SM-6 and Tomahawks missile.

[@Axispaw1]

65,000 tonnes was the original estimate before the ships were built, but once they were completed, this was updated to 70,600 imperial tonnes. The Chinese and US carriers use long (American) ton for their figures which weighs less than the imperial. So, in actual fact the QE Class, going by American standards is around 80,000 tonnes with the PoW being the larger sister; some estimating this to be by around 5,000 tonnes. So the QE Class of ships are really around 80,000 and 85,000 tonnes.

[@ZuulGatekeeper]

Remember the Royal Navy uses displacement tonnes not short tonnes used by other Navy's. A displacement ton is heavier so 65,000 displacement tonnes is actually around 72,000 short tonnes. That is also the unloaded weight add equipment, fuel & everything else it has to carry & you're looking around 85,000 tonnes.

[@danielch6662]

@@ZuulGatekeeper the weird thing is 003 is slightly longer and wider.

[@Doomguy05816]

Since China has now put the YJ-21 missile into service will the YJ-18 still have a place in the Chinese military in the future?

[@mrdelaney4440]

Course it will, adapt it for land use and give it to the infantry.

[@juhantoon6524]

Type 003 Fujian has no intention to sail to any European water and is intended to be employed in/around/within 3000 km from China mainland. So with support from the China mainland, no aircraft carrier can outperform China 003 Fujian, not even US aircraft carrier.

[@SilverSherry]

The queen elizabeth class seem to be also very unreliable as the HMS Prince of Wales broke down

[@SilverSherry]

@cjjk9142China one of the world’s top quality producers, western stereotypes make Chinese things seem bad but most of them are untrue.

[@user-uc7kg4wp7c]

@cjjk9142 In February this year, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" discovered a serious fault in the coupling on the starboard propeller shaft during a routine inspection before going to sea, which made it impossible to set sail and stay in the port. It had to withdraw from the NATO military exercise. There is no need for the Fujian to take action, the coupling of the British aircraft carrier will break by itself🤣

[@user-uc7kg4wp7c]

@cjjk9142 This doesn't prove anything. Only with the escort of the US Navy can the so-called "blue water" navy be realized.

[@markwoods4574]

Cat-o-bar system is likely to be fitted when HMS Queen Elizabeth goes in for a refit

[@monsterg4603]

I remember blue light driving once and a chinease girl was in the road she was startled like a rabbit and did not know which way to go. She spent at least 30seconds working out what to do in the middle of the road. I’m just saying.

[@Music5362]

This is not really comparing like with like. The UK carriers are designed to be cheap to build and operate. I suppose it's bang for your buck. Having planes that can land anywhere might be handy if carrier is in trouble, or sunk. Also the F35 can be dispersed throughout the UK if the UK was under serious attack, not needed large runways.

[@johnbodman4504]

That was a fantastic show, the delivery was perfect, particularly to deaf people like me, the volume was good and the words clear. The comparison of the two carriers, was like night and day. I am not convinced that the f-35b will stand up to multipal launches required for battle over an extended time. I believe that the f-35b is just too delicate for hard work and will start to break down under battle conditions. In my opinion the QE will be delegated to a helicopter carrier after its first war. The 003 is quite impressive for a country that has had carriers for only a short time. I think that the fixed wing fighters on the 003 will have more than double the payload each of the f-35 and probably close to double the range. The electro magnetic catapult alone, puts the 003 in a different class and the AESA radar just adds to that. I would like to have known the top speeds of both ships, but I will probably find out at some stage. I am looking forward to hearing about the 004 when it is built.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks man

[@user-dq1je7zy3p]

baseless claims about the F-35B

[@danielch6662]

@@user-dq1je7zy3p F-35C have about 50% more range than F-35Bs, and a far greater payload (23,000 vs 15,000 pounds). If like many people here suggest that the F-35Bs were to take off vertically instead of using the single runway, to get a higher sortie rate, the payload is even further limited.

[@Scowcz]

003: The advantage is obvious

[@theholyasdf3593]

Are AESA air search radars that important for CVs? Like you do really want your CV searching for fighters that might have ASMs? By the time CV sees an F35, it's in extreme danger. That role should primarily be for recon planes.

[@commie5211]

True, in ideal conditions. but it is hard for recon plane to fly 24/7 in all weather and sea conditions.

[@awu92]

Please don’t compare China with UK. They are different levels. Please compare China with USA.

[@drianhodgson]

China is a paper tiger, full stop - all hot air and wind, like the Chinese economy built on fraud against the vast chinese population. They would fold like a christmas card against the US, it would not be a genuine contest in any way, shape or form

[@raymondwong3739]

What are there to compare? They are two different class carriers or am I wrong?..lmao!

[@robertnemeth6248]

Are you Chinese by any chance?

[@niust]

good!

[@commie5211]

QE is pretty good until meet somebody has the ability to abuse its short commings, which is F35b' range. 🙂

[@BikersDoItSittingDown]

You are assuming that the carrier was built to take on the role of a super power country like China, Russia or the USA. Britain's job in NATO is anti-submarine warfare and this guy is wrong to under-estimate our capability in this area. Is there anyone better at this than the UK? Please let me know

[@Markus117d]

The F35b does not have to land vertically, They can do a Rolling Landing. Part hover & part conventional landing. Ps you don't name ships on what may happen, You name them on what you want them to be and represent..🙄

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

I'm not sure you actually need blast-deflectors with the F-35B to have (fairly) continuous launches. From what I could find, the Brits launch them STOVL with the nozzle angled down some 30-40 degrees. With the wide parking area and no time spend hooking planes up to a catapults, I think they could have a surprisingly good launch-rate. Specially if health & safety is kept busy down in the bilge 😄

[@raymondwong3739]

I am sure the QE2 carrier cannot sort out the interference of their electronic facilities and that's why they have to split up into two control towers! That was the main reason why Sheffield was hit during the Faulkland war because she had to switch off certain radars because of the interference! They have problem with their power output and water tight as well; as usual they blame China for the parts they had to import from China? Their electric is insufficient and unsteady so afterall it is a "patched up" carrier! So there is no way to compare with 003, a system with a far superior power design, output and energy and eletronic managements!

[@mythbusterthe6749]

😂😂😂 Fujian is a full fledged Aircraft Carrier. On the other hand UK QE II by definition is just helicopter or VTOL landing Platform equivalent to China 075. China planned to have approx 8 of them. With the later being 076. UK QEII has neither arresting gear nor catapult launching ability. Try again using USN Aircraft Carrier as comparison.🤔

[@noodles169]

Queen Elizabeth already tried and tested and she's only a few years old. End of debate

[@peteip2604]

Catapults will make the QE the best conventional Super AC.

[@danlee8640]

Engineers has calculated that it will take another 2 billion per ship to do the conversion? that's 4 billions which can be used to help the poor.

[@aryankhandelwal787]

My friends calls QE as world's biggest LHD , basically QE is a LHD only due to F-35B and a cope slope 🤣

[@johnnymars9782]

I highly doubt the QE will ever fight the Fujian close to Chinese waters. That is where China will likely use the Fujian and its existing aircraft carriers. But the Fujian does have bigger stats than the QE without a doubt. In the future, I can see China will develop its nuclear powered aircraft carriers to protect its trade and oil route into the Indian ocean.

[@Cravendale98]

I think the QE class are actually closer to 70k tons when fully loaded. Also from what I've read Prince Of Wales is actually slightly heavier than QE. I've also heard that the UK might be looking to acquire a maritime version of the MQ-9B with folding wings and catapult launch. This is only a rumour but it would give a whole lot more flexibility for AEW and tanker aircraft.

[@ENGBriseB]

It's around 75.000 tons when fully loaded. The flight deck is over 4 acres. "5th Feb 2021 Navy look out'. Carrying a full load of fuel and weapons Aircraft would mean over 10.000 tons.

[@johnbodman4504]

If they even had the slightest thought of using a catapult, it would have been installed as part of the initial construction. It could not be installed retrospectively without gutting half the ship.

[@Cravendale98]

@@johnbodman4504 Do you not think they thought of that? Ultimately it comes down to money and at the time the EMALS system was very immature and yet to be proven so it made sense to go for the tried and tested STOVL option.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

​@@johnbodman4504 True, but I think they left a very optimistic hope that it can convert into one in the future, by having the ski ramp as a seprate module, so it can be removed and went back to flat deck😂. The bigger issue is catapult, QEII uses gas turbine, which doesn't generate steam, so the only option is EM catapult, but the ships engine was already struggling without the extra load from electricoty generating for the catapult.

[@thepymes]

MQ-9B STOL doesn't need a catapult launch. It's designed to operate from the smaller USN Amphibious Assault ships (Wasp and America class).

[@khobenghong1315]

The QE is likely to be embarrassed. Britain has nothing to compare.

[@davout5775]

QE is perfectly capable carrier. Certainly more capable than 003

[@ENGBriseB]

Britain will be building a thrid carrier within the next 10 years. Never underestimate the Royal Navy since 1546. It will be your worst mistake are carriers are far superior than that from China which have no RADER or weapons system. Plus it will not be fully operational until 2026. The British carriers will be fully loaded with 6th generation fighter jet's and new Apache 64E Attack Helicopters. Plus are newly released Frigates and destroyers with Sea Ceptor missile systems. And the Royal Navy are investing in the future building more ships 24 Frigates and destroyers by 2030. And are 7 Astute class nuclear submarines plus are new Dreadnought class nuclear submarines. Plus over 5 billion people in the world that are on the side of democracy and freedom. Not Authoritarianism is never going to win over FREEDOM !

[@johnsilver9338]

Apparently QE has the fastest sortie rate, even faster than Ford or Nimitz or any other catapult based carrier. F-35Bs can just do an elephant walk like with any other fighter aircraft do in land, as it can take off using lesser runway. Also don't need arresting gears to land so it also has the fastest recovery rate. Harriers were also able to do it on a smaller carrier. Only took 50 seconds to launch 4 of them. [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJOai5-Qd6mje7M

[@demetriwright6624]

Them old British radars. Are very good at detecting Chinese submarines.

[@EurasiaNaval]

God I hate charlatans who don't even google if radar works underwater

[@XkMeng]

not same class

[@robertnemeth6248]

The Queen Elizabeth could operate a fixed wing variant of the V22 and this could be fitted with AEW so you are wrong again...

[@saarpaz4584]

Stovl whould cut air sorties & fluent operations to my opinion

[@HappyDT]

I would be so happy when HMS Queen Elizabeth becomes the mermaid queen of the South China Seas just like the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales

[@gelinrefira]

I will be happy when all these ships retire without ever needing to fire a single shot.

[@simonyip5978]

I really believe that the time when it will be almost suicidal for western navies to operate anywhere close to China is rapidly approaching. There is a massive difference between western countries deploying FONP cruises in peacetime, knowing that they are not going to have to face the PLA Navy and airforce, and deciding to take the huge risk of losing its fleet by trying to deploy and operate in the same area, but in wartime. The US likes to project it's carrier groups in the SCS/NW Pacific etc, but I doubt very much that the US government would ever consider trying the same thing in the event of hostilities. But that is the whole point of the PRC's Anti Access Area Denial strategy.

[@lakeplacid4606]

@@simonyip5978 Made in china are garbage

[@Judge_Dredd]

Mmm...so you've not even considered STOL operation of the F-35B, when STOL was first achieved in 2008, and STOL systems developed for the QE Class Carrier. Just because you haven't seen STOL used doesn't mean that the ship isn't capable of increased sortie rate using STOL instead of STOVL. Also STOL/STOVL Carriers can operate in worst sea states than CATOBAR/STOBAR Carriers. The RN wasn't going to demonstrate STOL Operation in the South China Sea for the benefit of China. You also fail to mention that the Radar systems on F-35B can extend the range of what the carrier can see, along with the Radars of it's escorts, Type 45, Type 23, and even it's Royal Fleet Auxiliary Support, which are all connected using sensor fusion, and that's without Crowsnest or Military Satellites adding to the picture. The fact that Type 26 & Type 83, along with AI Airborne, Surface, and Submarine Assets deployed by Type 32 and QE Carriers, is also not subject to your video appears to turn this into some sort of Chinese Propaganda. The idea is to reduce the size of your target for any enemy, distribute your defence and sensors/radar assets, and operate more stealthily in worst conditions than your enemy, use of 5th Gen aircraft, advanced sonar, reduced acoustics, reduced radar signatures, and military innovation rather than copy n paste will defeat any adversary. We invented the carrier, and almost everything bolted on a carrier, or flown on or off a carrier, just because we're not going to waste money on undeveloped systems now does not mean that the existing design doesn't support a re-fit to EMALS and CATOBAR, or even Nuclear Propulsion, the QE design supports a deck extension to the bow (look at the current blunt nose), and to the side for an offset landing deck, and the modular nature and distributed power generation of the QE design already supports the inclusion of shipping container sized Small Modular Reactors in the existing sponsons. You gloss over the fact that the Gas Turbine & Diesel propulsion is all electric, and that it has Rolls Royce designed computer controlled variable pitch propellors to maximise thrust and range. The fact that anyone on the flight deck can order any part for any aircraft using a tablet, that will automatically be delivered by a computerised system to the flight deck within minutes seems to be a big plus in the design as well, less crew means less stores required, hence the space for a small hospital on-board, and a bar for moral. Good achievement in China copying Carriers the British were building 50 years ago, but things have moved on a bit. BTW, we have not lost operational knowledge of CATOBAR or Carriers, RN Pilots and Crews have been embedded in the USN for donkeys years operating USN Jets and Deck Equipment, as the US did not want us to 'forget' everything we invented.

[@eymeeraosaka2954]

Increasingly I see Western weapon systems lagging behind the Russian and Chinese in terms of technology and costs. I wonder why?

[@brettdemauna9332]

The on-going conflict in Ukraine tells the opposite, those Russian weaponrie's were constantly been decimated by the more advanced & capable Ukraine's weaponrie's being supplied by the west.

[@sjandroid519]

@@brettdemauna9332 Indeed, and that's why the Ukraine is now outside Moscow, oh wait... You seem to mix WMSM propaganda with what our eyes and logic tells us. Our wunderwaffen aren't any better than the German's were '45.

[@wall7171]

@@brettdemauna9332 that really does not show the opposite you know any Non-Stealth fighter jet can get shot down easily

[@wall7171]

@@brettdemauna9332 the only real let down is the skill and coordination and it's a lack of drones other than that all equipment is working as expected

[@seraphx26]

@@brettdemauna9332 Except Russia is basically pulverizing Ukraine at this point in spite of all the new Western weapons systems, but go off lmao.

[@commodorce6431]

Hmmm only 24 f-35b but it’s what there going to be carrying that makes up for their numbers…meteors

[@aburetik4866]

The EMALS in the Chinese type-003 is way more efficient in launching aircrafts, which offers a significant edge over the American Nimitz class carrier.

[@Andrew-re3po]

Nimitz class is able to launch fighters in an average of 2 fighters per minute, considering the Nimitz has 4 of the catapult, larger deck size, and smaller aircraft, Nimitz class are still able to launch more jets than 003.

[@johnsilver9338]

QE can have the same sortie rate if not faster as F-35Bs can launch vertically.

[@Andrew-re3po]

@@johnsilver9338 Will, if the F35B carried 4 AMRAAMs, it can have 48% of the fuel during vertical take off, which greatly affected it's Combat radius

[@johnsilver9338]

@@Andrew-re3po Isn't that what the ski-ramp is for?

[@Andrew-re3po]

@@johnsilver9338 But, you have only one runway for ski-ramp, and each catapult can have 1 aircraft ready to launch, also catapults can allow aircrafts to take off at maximum weight.