HMS Queen Elizabeth vs The Charles de Gaulle - Which is Better?

[@christophe1579]

Super etendard aircrafts are no longer in use on the French carrier since 2016. It's full rafale today

[@chrislye8912]

The plural of aircraft is aircraft. Aircrafts is incorrect and makes you look silly.

[@michellebrown4903]

​@@chrislye8912maybe he's French ?

[@chrislye8912]

@@michellebrown4903 perhaps, but it has become a habit of some to say it.

[@Thomas-uu9ex]

@@chrislye8912 you can try in french

[@chrislye8912]

@@Thomas-uu9ex depuis 2016, les super-étendards ne sont plus utilisés sur le porte-avions français. Vous plaisantez, c’est utilisé tout le temps par des gens qui essaient de paraître intelligents. Merci Duo Lingo. 😜

[@boots2926]

We're allies, who's better doesnt matter. Each would rush to the defence of the other. The French carrier will have a better bakery though.

[@benconnelly3224]

This is true 😂

[@pow474]

The British one has a pub though 😂

[@paulfoley4126]

And a chipy

[@guigui-lehardi7193]

The CdG obviously has better bread, but the Brits most likely have better beer on board. We should just share at this point lol.

[@shouldhavedonebetter]

Allies?.....sort of. If the US got embroiled in the South China Sea defending Taiwan say - my bet is the French and British carriers would make a beeline home.

[@tdogrc]

Irrelevant which is bigger or better. If we go to war the British will help the French and the French will help the British. We love to boast who is the best,it’s a long standing tradition between the British and the French but ultimately we will always be there for our friends 🇬🇧🇫🇷

[@englishalan222]

Who said the French are our friends?

[@frnsjamie8347]

Not me for sure !

[@kp78686]

Exactly mate, we're not living in 1066 it's never mentioned but I'm pretty sure the UK wasn't under immediate threat during WW2 but doing the right thing and getting involved was the only option. It's a absolute shame that the rest of the world can't put differences aside and move on positively like European countries post War. It's bizarre how Russia and the West act like 2 15 yr old kids with a bit of animosity on the play ground

[@anthonykeane4984]

​@@englishalan222 theyre that one annoying friend who winds you up but will always have your back 😂

[@Makeyourselfbig]

@@kp78686 "I'm pretty sure the UK wasn't under immediate threat during WW2". WTF are you talking about? The Germans were only 20 miles away on the other side of the channel.

[@expantube]

Ridiculous question : they both have specific assets and weaknesses, and nobody can tell which assets will be decisive in case of a conflict... Plus they will never fight against each other, but fight together as brothers. In that extent, being different, and maybe complementary, is a huge asset

[@ArchieFatcackie]

I don’t think it’s a ridiculous question at all. Where did I ever suggest they would be fighting against each other?

[@expantube]

@@ArchieFatcackie You create a fake competition between partners, that will of course lead to negative comments on both sides about the other competitor... You'd better compare them with the new Chinese vessels !

[@ArchieFatcackie]

@@expantube Can you not read? All I asked was does the carrier have anti missile protection and you for some reason have thought I’m creating some kind of competition between them. You seem to lack basic reading skills or probably more likely basic intelligence.

[@misterthemad994]

​@@expantubeyeah, partners... the only thing worse than being enemy with the anglo-saxons is being their "ally".

[@basedglennuk]

"Brothers" fighting an invented enemy while their respective towns & cities become crime-ridden shitholes 😒

[@alexandregamb]

As a french both are really good. There is no reason to try to push one above another with such capacities.

[@dafyddthomas7299]

Agree - Pros of CdG - can stick out to sea for up to 5 years without refuelling, Cat deck allowing more planes to take off and land from deck - like excellent French Rafale, US F18 super hornets, F-35'b's E-2 Hawkeye, Helicopters, etc, missile defences. Cons of Cdg France at moment only has one Aircraft Carrier - ideally should have had 2 (like UK).

[@till8014]

​@@dafyddthomas7299Or to have eleven Supercarrier like USA 😅

[@nickwilliams7867]

@@dafyddthomas7299 5 years with no refuelling but you have to refuel aviation fuel and supplies for the men and women on board.

[@dafyddthomas7299]

Good point indeed @@nickwilliams7867

[@thetruthhurts7675]

These types of videos are designed to try to make allied nations argue. Because the QE class will NEVER have to fight the Charles de Gaulle these types fo videos are useless really for anything than raising Jingoism between other wise good friends.

[@nickduf]

Le seul défaut du Charles de Gaulle, c'est qu'il n'existe qu'à un seul exemplaire !!

[@pierremozgawa4560]

Exactement, et ça se répétera sans doute avec le prochain porte-avion prévu pour 2035…

[@lucaspizzardini1012]

Ça coûte bien trop chère deux on pourrait pas se le permettre

[@indogen2198]

@@pierremozgawa4560il y’a une étude pour en construire 2

[@Yoshigueru_.]

@@indogen2198 non, le futur du porte avion n'en est pas à deux car le projet est qu'en 2026 débutera la construction du nouveau porte-avions français. Le deuxième plus grand après l'USS Gerald R. Ford. La France a dit qu'elle ne voulait que du porte avion nucléaire. Le truc, c'est que ça coute bien plus chère qu'un porte avion "classique". ça fait bien longtemps que ce n'est plus à l'ordre du jour et si demain c'est le cas, le prix seraient énorme car il faudrait produire et ENTRETENIR deux porte-avions de classe superporte-avions

[@Skyline68230]

@@Yoshigueru_. Je ne suis pas réellement sûr qu'un deuxième porte avion coûterait tant que ça ! Techniquement si le gouvernement décidait de doter la France d'un deuxième, le coût unitaire baisserait considérablement. Le prix à l'achat de deux portes-avions, par rapport à un seul, ne seraient pas du simple au double, uniquement pour l'entretien. J'imagine que le plus cher à entretenir sur ces portes avions à venir sera probablement les moteurs et les catapultes. Mais ceux ci ne demandent pas à être révisés chaque année. En somme, si on compte l'achat et l'entretien de deux portes avions sur ces 15 prochaines années, le coût ne représenterait pas une part énorme dans le budget. Et puis il faut également savoir ce qu'on veut. La France veut une indépendance stratégique, mais si l'unique porte avion d'un pays est en cale sèche pour révision, ça nuit considérablement à ses capacités stratégiques. Faut se donner les moyens de ses ambitions.

[@theMooly]

Les Anglais ont construit un magnifique et puissant porte-avion, c'est une fierté de les voir navigué côte-à-côte avec le Charles de Gaulle. 🇬🇧🤩🇫🇷

[@adamking4538]

*British.

[@mrfrisky6501]

British - not English

[@gg4760-k5n]

@@adamking4538 true but saddly, to my fellow countrymen, anything within the British Isles is English. My partner is Irish and she is fuming everytime people think she is English and ask her about Brexit lol.

[@gg4760-k5n]

Yet many will tell you how great Scotland or Ireland is, go figure.

[@mrfrisky6501]

@@gg4760-k5n well 2 of the last UK Prime ministers have been Scottish for a start kid.

[@frankthompson6503]

Doesn't matter what is better France and Britain need each other as does Portugal and Italy and Spain and Greece.

[@Daveyboy1066]

No the French carrier (when at sea) can operate totally independently having all the capabilities of an Aircraft Carrier. That unfortunately cannot be said of the Liz class which most definitely will need the support of other carriers or land based aircraft.

[@hitub3]

Yep Europe must stand together

[@Then.72]

@@Daveyboy1066the UK has more land bases plus invented most carrier technology including the steam catapult, armoured deck, angled deck, Radar , Optical Landing System, STOVL and was even first to weld the carrier instead of using rivets but it’s our governments that’s been the downfall because they’ve sold off our technology and given some away because EMALS was EMKITS. Today they’ve used migrants as cheap labour as workers in the shipyards that’s caused problems on the two new QE class carriers plus Tory cutbacks on the MOD is the reason why they don’t have catapults but the Royal Navy would never use Nuclear Reactors on a surface vessel

[@Daveyboy1066]

Never say never, no they were suckered by BAE systems whom told them that the modular nature of the carriers meant they could "easily" be upgraded with catapults at a later date BUT when they realised how crazy it was to spend so much on 2 carriers that could not perform the most basic functions of a carrier and approached BAE systems to upgrade them they were told it would cost the same as a whole new carrier to do so! @@Then.72

[@denislaouenan5553]

Yes they need each other like in Mers el Kebir

[@Krshn42]

The main difference is ... Hawkeye. For a carrier, an awacs aircraft is mandatory, it is so important and I let people check that by their own.

[@McZsh]

The RN has Crowsnest helicopters for that.

[@Krshn42]

come on you cannot compare an aircraft with an helicopter. Moreover the radar used with the helicopter does not have the same range

[@EnglishScripter]

@@Krshn42 Hawkeye has ~350nm range, in the modern day they are not detecting any sea skimming missile, stealth missile, stealth plane, nothing. Against stealth it is no better than the crown set. And stealth is the biggest risk.

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

@@Krshn42 The Royal Navy will replace the Crowsnest helicopters in 2029 with unmanned surveillance drones of which the Vixen fixed wing drone project is one of several projects under study or development at the moment.

[@jameshunter5485]

The most inportant factor is that these carriers can interact with and complement each other and with American carriers. Along with NATO, Commonwealth, Japan and ROK vessels this insures that the free world will control the seas.

[@Daveyboy1066]

Yes without the support of real Aircraft Carriers the Liz class is pretty useless.

[@jameshunter5485]

@@Daveyboy1066 HMS QE and HMS POW need apologize to no one. These capable ships are and will be vital assets for the free world and freedom of the seas.

[@Daveyboy1066]

Not asking them to but if you can't see my point (that they are just glorified super expensive helicopter pads) having no catapults, arrestor wires or even Nuclear power, then you probably are an employee of BAE Systems.

[@Dingdangdoo]

@@jameshunter5485 they’ll be good decoys to protect the real aircraft carriers.

[@rotisserierotisserie320]

you seem to want to forget, China, Russia, India, Turkey….. I am not convinced of your assertion

[@StevenWarren-h1e]

We worked together. It doesn't matter which one's better. They complimented each other.

[@Daveyboy1066]

Yeah totally trust the selfless French!

[@Daveyboy1066]

Just remember what happened in the last war between our navies!

[@robertcottam8824]

@@Daveyboy1066 Well, over time, the French military has been quite a bit better than its British equivalent. The Brits have never conquered France - even after multiple tries… ‘Guillaume Le Conquerent’, anybody? The Royal Navy is a historical curiosity nowadays; The British Army has always been a triumph of style-over-substance and The Royal Airforce is tiny. “France has been the greater military power over much longer periods of time.” Discuss: Pip pip!

[@StevenWarren-h1e]

Who you always keep one eye open Evan on your friends

[@philipdawes2661]

CdG obviously, it works and has aircraft.... 2 very big advantages if not showstoppers for the comparison.

[@NicofromParis]

Your point is relevant. But we are not speaking about « carrier cover », we are speaking about aircraft capabilities provided by a specific aircraft carrier. CDG can send aircraft more loaded and further than QE thanks to CATOBAR. Do not pretend that STOBAR= CATOBAR, that’s untrue.

[@st1nk1n]

And Queen Elizabeth can send stealth fighters. So, do not pretend that arrester gear wins wars.

[@Murfie-qe3pp]

Doesn’t have many stealth fighters yet though…..

[@johnbrobston1334]

@@st1nk1n CDG can operate any aircraft that the US Navy can operate you know.

[@crazyhorse1771]

QE was constructed from the outset to be fitted with arrester gear, so they can be modified to be CATOBAR carriers in the future if they decided to switch to F-35C's.

[@guayaquilander]

I'm british and have to admit the CDG is a real carrier with catapults early warning planes (hawkeye). The british carriers would be great, way better than de CDG if they finally get electromagnetic catapults, but where is the money going to come from to pay for that?

[@zednotzee7]

@cjjk9142 The Royal Navy's Airforce is called The Fleet Air Arm. 🙂

[@Orbital_Inclination]

​@@zednotzee7All UK F-35s are controlled by the RAF (1 Group), with 3x RAF Sqns and 1x FAA Sqn jointly manned by a mixture of FAA/RAF personnel.

[@zednotzee7]

@@Orbital_Inclination Really ? If that is the case then it's daft. It could cause both the FAA and the RAF problems. The RAF needs them to go one place and do one thing, and the RN needs them to go somewhere else and do something different. Typical that the FAA get's the dirty end of the stick mind you. It's like WW". The FAA wanted a proper navel version of the Spitfire, but the RAF stopped it happening.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

@@zednotzee7 its the same operating model as Joint Force Harrier. Why run two separate fleets of identical aircraft, when it's far more efficient to run one combined fleet and pool budget, manpower and airframes? Yes, there are drawbacks in terms of priorities, but everything is a compromise with pros and cons.

[@ljm9359]

For a 45,000-tons carrier, Charles-de-Gaulle PA could carry a maximum of 35 Rafales (with 18 stored in the hangar). If we consider the striking power, defined to be how many tonnes of ordance (bombs, missiles) could be delivered on a daily / weekly basis to targets of hundreds of kms away, then the Charles-de-Gaulle PA is second only to the USN super carriers of 100,000 tons. As of today, this striking power is considerably more formidable than that achievable for the 2 QE-2 (65,000-tons) carriers, with their F-35Bs, combined !

[@hoytrichardson3448]

Very interesting. With that being said, can we stop using the term battleship in place of warship. They are not the same thing. While it was clear what they meant in this instance, but that isn’t always case and it can get confusing.

[@dennisleighton2812]

Agreed!

[@MostlyPennyCat]

There's one thing that's going catapault (ha) the QE Class to the top of the pile. The first refit plan for the QEs is adding lightweight EMALS CATOBAR facilities to the ships. This will allow launching of heavyweight unmanned drones which will perform the following missions: 1) Always available unmanned tanker facilities enabling aircraft to stay aloft 24/7. 2) Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) Distributed AESA Radar drones collaborating to create a massive and detailed radar picture, including piercing enemy stealth, detecting enemy EW and performing EW atracks 3) Launching 'Lotal Wingmen' drones to accompany manned F-35B strike packages. 4) Automated fast respnse CSAR drones. 5) Standalone ASW Drones, launching sonar buoys and torpedo attacks. 6) This one is interesting. Everybody will criticise the QE class for only having 3 Phalanx CIWS guns on board. Everybody also uses CAP (Combat Air Patrol), but with EMALS launched drones for AEW&C, you can also launch unmanned CIWS armed defense drones, which suit 1 to 2 kilometers out from the QE Class. much better reaction times against hypersonics, multiple chances to destroy the incoming much further out. So imagine 6 CIWS/CAP Drones being cued by AEW&C Drones, shooting lasers, RAMS and Bofors 3P shells at incoming enemy munitions. They will be the most advanced and dangerous aircraft carriers in the world, into until America catches up. However, America is often loathe to innovate. They may just maintain their 'manned everything' approach. Or works, possible even better, but it's MUCH more expensive.

[@ml1234100]

It doesn't matter which is better. What matters is that Europe needs to step up in the world. As mutch as possible we need to do this together. 100y ago we were the leading continent, today we are behind the US, China and we will be behind India an Russia if we don't act.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

Agree. That's why France is increasing army budget and R&D by 40% in next years. But that's not enough. If we all want to stick to the best it is 3.5% of GPD per country at the least. Our politicians are not forseeing enough...

[@XavierLeFrancais]

And don't forget our catastrophic demographics:120 years ago Europe was 40% of world population, now we are barely 10% of it and have to defend our culture. A battle that for the moment we lose with stupid politician in western Europe..."globalization" with mass immigration they call that. Fools that they are. Enoch Powell in his speech of "rivers of blood" had forseen it...but nobody was listening in the intellectual desert of our "elite"....

[@johnbrobston1334]

deGaulle is nuclear CATOBAR. Queen Elisabeth is turbine/ski jump. deGaulle is definitely the more capable ship.

[@Mulberry2000]

only in range which is limited to food and water. Plus it will need regular fixing. Not to say the ship is rubbish it is not, as a side note the UK ship is far bigger and in a crisis can carry more than 36 planes. The Charles de gulle has a lot lesser sparce and carries about 30 Rafale which are similar to typhoons. I think the UK carrier can carry at least 72 F35Bs in a war emergency, based on size. Oh the American F35s on the UK carrier are there to keep an eye on the brits as the US does not trust its allies fully.

[@hangar1873]

@Mulberry2000 Charles de Gaulle can carry up to 40 Rafales (it has already done so). Nuclear powered carrier have more space than classic prop. (Due to space taken by fuel bunkers) So 65000T QE class can't take more than 45000T CdG. for the moment the British aircraft carriers have not shown better reliability and availability than the CDG...

[@athrunzala6770]

@@Mulberry2000 each time this argument of the place for water and food but you forgot the role of the A725 Jacque Chevalier.

[@Mulberry2000]

@@athrunzala6770 Groan you missed the point it still needs to be restocked no matter by whom.

[@athrunzala6770]

@@Mulberry2000 in fact it is refueled at sea like the rest of the naval air group.. the Jacques Chevalier is the first in a series of 4 or even 5 refuelers.. which technically allows the naval air group to remain at sea much longer

[@rodneytregear7407]

Both nations being members of NATO, along with all the other NATO nations, now including Sweden and Finland, comprise a formidable team. They are not competing against each other, but together as a huge team provide a tremendous stability to World Peace in this crazy and insane situation that this planet has managed to get itself into. We need this stability to combat the escalating world problems bought about by greed and ignorance. As an ex serving member of Royal Navy I am not biased in the least.

[@scottwhiting1871]

CDG is better than the Q.E. Class or as I call them super Invincible class, because that’s what they are as soon as the MoD dropped the cat and trap systems? Biggest loss is not having E2 Hawkeye aircraft. MoD learnt nothing from the Falklands war!

[@st1nk1n]

True, but they do have that helicopter version. Anyway, I think UK only goes to war with USA now. So, not that necesssary.

[@logangallagher7050]

That's why a daring class would accompany them everywhere

[@neilsbs8273]

The E2 at 10000 ft has a range of 230 nm, the Crowsnest 200nm not much difference

[@aceryer]

@@logangallagher7050 48 vls with only 8 ships in service?? the royal navy is too small to even fight a proper war

[@Macshephard1]

Who would want to tangle with either group. They are the same but different and I’m glad that they are on my side.

[@benjaminmathon7417]

CDG can carry E-2C Hawkeye Awacs

[@furiousscotsman2916]

And the QE has crowsnest EW on its helicopters that will be replaced by UAV early warning at some point, EW radar for CV's is moving away from fixed wing aircraft the size of the E2 so it really makes no difference.

[@johnbrobston1334]

@@furiousscotsman2916 A helicopter with a radar is not an AWACS. And a UAV is going to have to communicate with the carrier to be useful. He who radiates is lost. The E-2 moves battle management off the carrier making it much harder to target.

[@neilsbs8273]

@@johnbrobston1334 Airborne Warning and Control System, Yeah I think Crowsnest qualifies as it does what it says on the tin. With a range around 200 nm and the ability to detect airborne, sea skimming and land targets it gives 7 mins warning for a Mach 2 missile or 3 mins for a hypersonic which is plenty of time to react. The E2 states a range of 230 miles so in the big scheme of things not much difference. Both of those ranges are based on sea skimming targets so the reality will be considerably more. Crowsnest has a data link to speak to the F35s and to transmit to the ships of the fleet so I suspect any UAV will be the same if not someone needs shooting. The only significant advantage I can see of the E2 over Crowsnest is endurance.

[@johnbrobston1334]

@@neilsbs8273 1 in existence, not fully operational, and with enough problems that the RN is already looking at replacing in in the 2029 time frame. Low speed means long time to reach station, limited ceiling limits radar range, not really a substitute.

[@oudloek]

In terms of firepower, the french carrier wins. At the moment it is the only one capable of launching nuclear weapons.

[@PhillipDavison-iy2gh]

The British don’t have to launch nuclear weapons from carriers they have 4 Polaris nuclear subs to do that

[@oudloek]

@@PhillipDavison-iy2ghAh right, Thought this was about the two carrier classes. Well, the French have the Triomphant submarine class for nuclear deterrent.

[@scottmason8529]

​@@PhillipDavison-iy2ghvanguard subs carrying trident missiles. Polaris was phased out in the 90's

[@johnbrobston1334]

What prevents QE from launching nuclear weapons?

[@oudloek]

@@johnbrobston1334British F35B isn’t (yet) neither qualified or equipped for this.

[@keithprinn720]

a carrier on its own is not what is to be assessed, the supporting command and control and carrier group and AWACS are the issue, when would they combat themselves

[@dennisleighton2812]

I was surprised to hear that the French ship requires refueling every 5 years! My question is: how long does a refueling process take the ship off operations? In terms of US carriers, this takes place every 25 years (typically only once in its lifetime) and takes up to 3+ years to be completed (usually with a major refit). How does it work with the French carrier? The reason I ask is that during this time they won't have ANY carrier capability. One downside for the British carriers is the very slow addition of new F-35Bs from the US! Some say the Brits can't afford to pay for them any faster: other sources say that the stumbling block is the inability of the US to supply new planes any faster, as UK and US Marine Corp are the only customers for F-35B. Which is correct, or is it a combination? By the way, I read that in full combat mode the QE class ships can each house 48 F-35s in addition to the other aircraft. Will they ever get that many planes? Also, these ships are no "battleships" as referred to in the video- they are aircraft carriers! Battleships are obsolete relics from the last century!

[@steve-iw2bg]

Refueling takes a few years for CDG. The main problem with F35B procurement is we really need block 4 F35s which won't be available until 2028. The MOD bosses don't want to pay £90m per aircraft then another £20million per aircraft to upgrade it to block4 when it can buy block 4 straight off the production line. Total number of F35s will be around 72-80 aircraft. Aircraft carriers are the battleships of our day.

[@dennisleighton2812]

@@steve-iw2bg Thanks. I just hope that they don't need them before then, and get caught out with their pants down! An expensive ship like that with one squadron on board is a bit of a waste of resources. By 2028 HMS QE will be about ready for a big refit anyway! It seems the basic planning for this lot was a bit shoddy!

[@barrymiller3385]

CdG has already had her mid life refuelling. I don't think she will be refuelled again before the Pang is commissioned.

[@conormcmaster1113]

It's not 5 years , it's if it sustained speed continually it would last 5 years

[@dennisleighton2812]

@@conormcmaster1113 That sounds more reasonable. Any idea how long it will last at current operational levels? Thanks mate.

[@Phlegmwahn]

What a silly question. Neither Carriers deploy or operate alone. Each will be accompanied by its protective Battlegroup. Currently the RN doesn’t have enough ships to form an effective Battlegroup for either of the new carriers. In fact the RN has de commissioned two of its ships because it doesn’t have enough sailors to crew them!

[@chrisgoblin4857]

CDG is a monster when it comes to force projection with the range of it's nuclear engines. I've had a similar conversation with a friend about the QE in comparison to the US carriers but in reality, one compliments the other which applies here too. Better together with all our circle of allies involved in both these task forces. As a Brit the CDG edges it for me personally, but hey, just an opinion.

[@dennisleighton2812]

The whole range thing is a fallacy anyway. A carrier strike group is not limited in range by how far a carrier can go between refueling, but by the need for other stores as well, food, water, aviation fuel, crew rotas, etc. In fact, if ships need to go into port for repairs etc it would be much easier for the smaller non-nuclear RN ships than for a Ford class ship! A Royal Navy carrier can sail along with its US allies for as long as any operation can last, as their en-route replenishment capability is very efficient. This is a basic design requirement anyway.

[@athrunzala6770]

@@dennisleighton2812 u not know the jacque chevaliers ? and the British cannot form a naval air group because they lack sailors...

[@Then.72]

Most carrier technology is British apart from using Nuclear Reactors as a power source onboard vessels and our Admiralty won’t use them on surface vessels because they know it will be disastrous during naval warfare

[@athrunzala6770]

@@Then.72 it's just a shame that you technological carrier can't get out of the port

[@Then.72]

@@athrunzala6770 yes they can it’s just the government we have now that’s the problem but they’ll be gone soon that used foreign cheap labour to build them which caused the problems

[@PaulSnelling-ym3jc]

Given that both these ships will only ever operate on the same side, really no point in it being a Vs article, a better question is how they compliment each other?

[@Dragonblaster1]

The reason HMS Queen Elizabeth has non-nuclear engines is that many ports will refuse to accept nuclear-powered vessels. Yes, she has to refuel periodically, but then again, all ships need to heave-to periodically to take on supplies such as food and water. And the good old Tin Lizzie can sail into any allied or neutral port without trouble.

[@EnglishScripter]

Also, we have 2 carrier for a reason, if one takes years to refuel, that leaves us with one.

[@aceryer]

@@EnglishScripter Britain doesn't have the money to operate the POW. At one point they even decided to cancel it but the cost of cancellation would be more expensive hence they decided to keep it.

[@EnglishScripter]

@@aceryer They are both fully maintained at all times. They obviously did not decide to cancel it if it would cost too much money to cancel. Britain has had the largest gathering of 5th generation aircraft on any carrier in the world.

[@JamesofQPR]

At least we're on the same side these days 🙂 Extremely informative video.Thanks!

[@CaptainDangeax]

The only able to accept american jets (F18) is Charles de Gaulle. The only one able to launch using catapult is Charles de Gaulle. Nothing more to say

[@seanrichardson9404]

When you can land and take off vertically the catapult can stay in the toy box

[@CaptainDangeax]

@@seanrichardson9404 ok, kiddo. How many vtol planes ? F35b and... nothing more so interoperability zéro. And because F35b can not take off with full load of fuel+weapons, stobar is 40% less efficient than catobar. Let's check... usa owns 12 catobar. You kiddo must know better than first navy in the world

[@leoncarter9641]

Why would they want to? American jets can do that from there own Better carriers.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

One more thing CDG have nuclear detterence capacity with ASMP nuke missiles on the Rafale M. not a detail.

[@athrunzala6770]

@@leoncarter9641 They already do it you know? it's interoperability in NATO

[@denismichel8385]

The reason of existence of a carrier is to project the forces of an army far from home and control a vast area. Catapults allow to project forces farther with more armement onboard and allow also to send flying radars . Queen Elizabeth would be amazing if it had catapults.

[@user-bd5md5cm2j]

The French carrier is by far a better launch system. The UK ships have more powerful tech, but a carriers main job is to launch air campaigns. The French carrier would be far more effective in a battle.

[@garethrowlands]

The British carriers launch 5th gen aircraft. And there’s two of them.

[@user-bd5md5cm2j]

@garethrowlands I know. The f-35 have limits to take off without catapults. The French Carrier can launch fully loaded aircraft

[@garethrowlands]

@@user-bd5md5cm2j true enough but unless France gets 5th gen fighters, the f35bs are still a big advantage

[@user-bd5md5cm2j]

@garethrowlands they can be, but the French air craft can carrier alot bigger load out as well as faster. The f-35 has stealth, but it's short on load out.

[@garethrowlands]

@@user-bd5md5cm2j can you think of a scenario where load out would matter?

[@tonyhawk94]

They have a gap of one generation. I'd say that the pair of 2 carriers for Britain isn't bad with the Vtol capacity of the F-35, their problem at the moment is the lack of navy troops they already decomissioned 2 amphibious ships and soon 2 frigates. On the other hand France has only one carrier but its nuclear and every ship of the French navy is doubled crewed , meaning that the availability of ships is much greater. Also there is a debate in France to add skyjump capacity to the LHD which would turn them into light aircraft carriers with 8 rafales M each.

[@georgebarnes8163]

F-35 is not VTOL capable, they are STOVL.

[@alanmoore2197]

To me Queen Elizabeth has the biggest advantage of all - Prince of Wales. Having at least some redundancy allows for one carrier at sea (or able to put to sea) at all times. Now considering the bigger picture its hard to see too many cases where Britain & France wouldn't both be involved in any major conflict together so interoperability exercises like this are even more important to effective redundancy.

[@robertlee6338]

Queen Elizabeth is a dud

[@Daveyboy1066]

Yes I guess the French went all out for one very capable carrier whilst the UK went for 2 but with very very limited capability. The fact the Liz class are not nuclear powered, slow, have no arrestor wires, no catapult system and extremely limited CIWS basically makes them the most expensive and restricted helipad ever constructed and we have two!

[@keithprinn720]

the often broken cant deploy lemon lol

[@James-iv9fh]

​@Daveyboy1066 the queen elizabeth class is designed to have a angled deck with arrester wire. She was designed to have the electric catapult but it wasn't available and was way to expensive. She has all the Hull strengthening ready. Being non nuclear doesn't really matter as she will always be part of a task force which needs fuel and the aircraft will always need fuel.

[@Daveyboy1066]

Yes they are a modular design and sold to the government as such. So when questioned about their lack of capability without catapults or arrestor wires this is how BAE systems quashed their concerns. HOWEVER later when the government realised just how restricted they would be and approached BAE Systems about the installation they were told it would cost the equivalent of a new third carrier to modify both ships! I have heard BAE Systems were desperate for the ships NOT to have this capability as it would have lead to the purchase of F18's or similar to complement the F35's which would have threatened their lucrative Eurofighter contracts. As to having to top up aviation fuel, nuke carriers have TWICE the aviation fuel capacity because the volume that would be used for the ships engines fuel is turned over to aviation. Furthermore the ship can always guarantee getting to where ever it needs to be to get more. And task forces do not work in a world war because the tankers are simply to slow and would be left behind. I suggest you research the US carrier operations in the Pacific campaign to understand just how much of a hamstring keeping fast carriers fueled is! @@James-iv9fh

[@shilam]

Why is there a watermark in the video for the whole thing?

[@bennettste]

The QE can carry up to 72 aircraft. RN doctrine means they operate at 40 aircraft for maximum efficiency on sortie per aircraft. French and American doctrine is to carry the maximum aircraft possible and have the diminishing returns for redundancy. Most of these videos take the carried amount of aircraft and conflate it as the maximum.

[@razorburn645]

One small problem. Britain doesn't have the plans to do that. The Americans have to lend them some even after all this time.

[@OperationEndGame]

@@razorburn645 the RAF currently has 13 F-35B… The air component for the 2 QE CV is mostly manned by US Marine Corps’ F35B’s….

[@chris.jennings1882]

We say we hate each other but if and when it comes down to it, we are right by the French, just like we did in world war 1/2 we’ve got each others back! Salute 🇬🇧 🇫🇷

[@venatorclass9334]

Nobody is better Teamwork is the winner

[@TRDang1]

The aircrafts they can carry is also an important factor. The CDG has a catapult vs the QE ramp. With a catapult, you can now control how much kinetic energy you provide to an aircraft and have higher speed/take-off weight. You could of course launch light, and air-refuel after, but that isn’t always available. Rafale M can be launched with a fair amount more fuel and weapons than the Royal Navy’s F35B. It’s the same reason why the catapulted- launched conventional take-off F35C outperforms the F35B in the same aspect. That combined with the disadvantages of a STOVL aircraft like less internal fuel space and and more power taken from the engine from the vertical fan.

[@Lemurion287]

At the same time, STOVL allows for aircraft operations in worse sea states, so it's not entirely one-sided.

[@crazyhorse1771]

@@Lemurion287 That is true, CATOBAR carriers literally cannot launch or recover aircraft in really rough seas.

[@16psyco]

also, the Charles de Gaulle is the only non-US carrier with a magnetic catapult to launch it's aircraft

[@lordtemplar9274]

fyi steam catapult on CdG, magnetic will be for PANG

[@arnaud-l7p]

La catapulte magnétique est prévu sur le nouveau porte avion qui va être plu gros que le Charles de gaule

[@CT_7567Rex]

magnetic catapult give the de gaulle a big advantage bec it can launcher heavier aircraft and can launch awacs unlike the british one

[@aaalanwp]

It is not 'The' HMS Queen Elizabeth, it is HMS Queen Elizabeth

[@BlueBare_UK]

It tends to be an American English language way of speaking. They used to say travelling on The Concorde or on my old ship, sailing on The QE2.

[@gilfrancisjeno.panchoanime9675]

Why they have less escorts in their group? They're so vulnerable against air, subs, and missile attacks

[@valkry007]

my thoughts exactly, a carrier worth having is a carrier worth protecting, look at the screen the American carriers have.

[@steve-iw2bg]

The queen Elizabeth usually goes to sea with 2 type 23 anti submarine frigates with sonar so powerful they can hear a tanker start it's engines in new York from Portsmouth and 2 type 45 destroyers that have the best reaction times to sea skimming anti ship missiles than any other navy with extremely fast accurate missiles, and 2 auxiliary ships as well as 2 ships from NATO partners.

[@samwright4420]

UK, not at war with any country, or in a high threat area

[@samwright4420]

UK is part of NATO, if a major country, try anything, the USA will be involve

[@davidbrooks187]

@@steve-iw2bgnot forgetting the accompanying submarine.

[@kinai01]

One common downside to jump type carriers. The aircraft cannot take off with either a full fuel load or a full armament load. Although smaller the French Carrier can lunch a fully loaded aircraft

[@Rasterizing]

This is actually not the case with the F35 - it can!

[@jimmyoshea465]

Brilliant 👍 fascinating stuff

[@NicofromParis]

STOVL is so efficient and safe that no US aircraft carrier use it and China is switching from STOVL to CATOBAR 😃

[@380Scania]

We can’t exactly shout about our RN carriers at the moment. Prince of Wales in dry dock for emergency repairs to her propulsion and is back at sea now and now big Lizzie is in or about to go into dry dock again for problems with her prop shaft. Beggars belief. Anyway French are Nato allies so my ship is better than your ship is not really relevant.

[@jamesthomas3446]

It's HMS Queen Elizabeth, not 'The' HMS Queen Elizabeth.

[@lionelyooooshi555]

How can we compare both ships if you don't show equivalent equipments? Like you showed British radars but not French ones?

[@johnallen7807]

The QE class should have been built in half the time using nuclear power and catapults so a wider range of aircraft could be used.

[@Bellthorian]

The De Gaulle is far better because of its ability to use catapult aircraft. The E2C gives it a HUGE edge.

[@Then.72]

Not in bad weather plus it’s a British design that it uses because the French didn’t design it nor the angled deck and the Optical Landing system ! Plus much more

[@AndyH2023.]

Until the catapult breaks down like they normally do

[@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh]

Hilarious@@Then.72

[@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh]

Everything breaks, which is why you have refits; steam catapults are very reliable; the British carriers have massive problems and are barely operational; while in theory they can host 24 F35, massive delays in procurement means that a single carrier with only 8 UK F35B is available currently. @@AndyH2023.

[@keepyournoseout1569]

What a dumbass comment the French ship is junk old technology built in the late 90s the British ship is far superior and any country in the world would be silly to mess with the British on the seas they have some of the best vessels inc nuclear subs and shouldn't be underestimated by any country there technology is far advanced than anyone's and there crews are probly the best trained in the world just my opinion

[@bugul_noz]

How can you made a video on this subject without mentioning that only one of them use catapults ?

[@st1nk1n]

Or indeed, which carrier can launch the most aircraft in quick succession. Or if they can both launch and recover aircraft at the same time.

[@michaellaforce9153]

I think it's obvious one of them requires a catapult and one doesn't.

[@bugul_noz]

@@michaellaforce9153 Of course it's obvious but don't you think catapults are usefull ? So why the advantages of the catapults are not mentionned ?

[@williamhall667]

There was a plan to build a third Queen Elizabeth class carrier for the French. but they pulled out after the 2008 financial crash. before work had started.

[@Cartoonman154]

And now they are looking to build 1 carrier that will cost nearly 8 billion.

[@livelaurent]

@@Cartoonman154 yes and? Did you even take the time to look at what that carrier will be for those 8B? Or not really? Not to mention that the 'old' and outdated QE design is actually French lol People and their pride... Cannot beat that :D

[@XavierLeFrancais]

It was a CATOBAR version of it.

[@azzajames7661]

​@@livelaurent It was a bunch of companies that designed the QE class, as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance is a partnership of BAE Systems, Babcock International, Thales Group and the Ministry of Defence (which acts as both partner and client), together with Rosyth Dockyard, to build the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. The twin islands are the future as they can take over each others duties if the other gets destroyed and/or damaged😜

[@NicofromParis]

An aircraft carrier with a catapult vs an aircraft carrier without catapult. Easy to understand which one can send fully loaded / 100% fueled aircrafts.

[@mrfrisky6501]

So can the Brits - they use rolling landings so the F35 can take off and land loaded up.

[@NicofromParis]

@@mrfrisky6501 No. Without a catapult, with a STOBAR takeoff, F35s don't take off « loaded up ». There's a reduction in range and power compared to take-off via CATOBAR (with catapult).

[@mrfrisky6501]

@NicofromParis think the point is a F35 off a QE carrier is still a more dangerous threat than just about everyother jet taking off from a carrier. The rolling landings do mean more fuel and ordinance can be returned to the ship for reuse. As I said, the main advantage is that the Brits can actually deploy a carrier and F35s anytime - the Frence carrier with all its problems and the fact its only one is an option only around 60% of the time.

[@NicofromParis]

⁠​⁠@@mrfrisky6501this was not the initial question. A F35 not fuelly loaded with less fuel and ammunition cannot use 100% of its potential rolling landing or not. If your target is 1000 miles far and your F35 can’t reach it, your plane is useless. If CATOBAR doesn’t make a difference compared to STOBAR why the US are systematically using it ? Why China is working hard to develop the same system? Same goes for India ? Not mentioning the loss of know how for decades in the royal navy due to the abandonment pf aero naval capabilities (which explain the recent accident for a UK F35 on a aircraft carrier and also why there are US F35 & team on QE to ensure the slow ramp up of of UK capabilities, lost during 20y)

[@mrfrisky6501]

@NicofromParis the point of an aircraft carrier is so you can sail closer to where you want to engage. Don't forget the primary role of the UK navey is to make sure UK trade is free and safe so the countries economy isn't affected - you seem to think the QE remit is to invade countries like the American carrier groupes - not the case. The main point is that the UK has 100% carrier cover - France does not have that option.

[@tonybmw5785]

QE is more modern with better ships systems allowing a greater level of future-proofing in terms of combat information systems upgrades, which is great but she is not very flexible operationally. The CdG although much older has the edge for me as she has a cat and trap setup up which means she can service all types of NATO/western naval aviation, while QE owning to our recent government's normal short-sightedness has been limited by only being able to operate only VSTOL types. As cat and trap QE was on the drawing board until the treasury got involved and forced a pound shop Carrier on us rather than the full-blown Harrods model the Royal Navy intended!

[@ricardosmythe2548]

Cats n traps have disadvantages in terms of airframe lifespan and an increase in an airframes maintenance schedule. Longevity is a major factor in the decision to use the current setup on the QE class.

[@tonybmw5785]

@@ricardosmythe2548 I understand that, but the main reason why QE's were not fitted with them from the start was cost-cutting by ministers rather than thoughts about airframe longevity. Also without C&T we are trapped in having to purchase the F35, rather than being able to develop, purchase, and operate conventional carrier types for things like airborne refueling and heavy ordinance delivery to target.

[@tonybmw5785]

@@JimCarner I've not seen much about it but from what I read it seemed kind of short-sighted that if we're going to dry dock the QE's to fit a drone-capable C&T not spend the extra couple of million to fit ones rated for manned types, which would solve the QE's flexibility issue and increase the power of their punch.

[@tonybmw5785]

@@JimCarner you're obviously way more informed than me, because my info comes from a friend at BAe who worked original concept for QE before he left the RN

[@tonybmw5785]

@@JimCarner For high-risk missions drones obviously make sense, but I can still see the need for manned aircraft because drones can be hacked. No matter how secure data links get there is always someone who breaks it, and the perfect spy job would be to turn an attacking drone force back on its creator's which means there needs to be a human involved in the operation in the battle space. The second point, runway independence is useful but the ability to lift heavy payloads is strategically more useful. I can't see a time when we won't need runways. Yes, carrier groups are vulnerable but the amount of power they can project means if the defense systems are integrated and the crews well trained then they should be a tough nut to crack.

[@YanArMoal44]

A little update would be welcome. the super étandards have been removed from service in 2016. there 're only M Rafales on CdG.

[@thorodinson7573]

charles de gaulle is superior because it can launch an awac thanks to the catapults and rafale m is way more capable than f35b because it doesn't carry a huge fan forshort take off

[@georgebarnes8163]

Both UK carriers also have AWAC

[@thorodinson7573]

@@georgebarnes8163 no, i couldnt even find any information about any early warning aircraft on these carriers and if they have a plane capable of it, its definitely not as efficient as an E2

[@crazyhorse1771]

​​@@thorodinson7573they carry up to 3 merlin helicopters with crowsnest aew radar. They are to be replaced in the 2030's with unmanned systems.

[@prst99]

Which ship has the better food?

[@GoetheMr]

Charles de Gaulle. 😁

[@brianphillips7696]

Probably lol

[@annierichards]

Easy, Charles de Gaulle. Fixed wing fighters - 24 Rafale M vs up to 8 F-35Bs. AEW/ASaC - 2 Advanced E-2D Hawkeye's vs a few Merlin helo's fitted with Crowsnest (which it's been accepted will never work as advertised, targeted for 2029). Similar max speed but CdeG has nuclear propulsion. Armament wise, its not even a contest. Also CdeG can cross deck with USN carriers. Maybe the answer will be different in 10 years time.

[@Louis-ej1lx]

QEC can carry a lot more than 8 F35Bs, UK has 32 F35Bs, France has 41 Rafale-M, easy win for F35 in that fight. 2 E2Cs as France hasn't received E2D yet, does not provide 24/7 capability. QEC is faster. Always a QEC available, often CdG isn't available. Missiles on carriers would never be used in combat so there's no point in having them. QEC can cross deck with Italian Navy and Air Force, Spanish Navy, USMC and in the future Japan. CdG can only cross deck with USN.

[@ricardosmythe2548]

QE class can carry up to 48 F35Bs and will eventually use drones for refueling and as AWACS platforms. There are also 2 carriers operated by the RN instead of 1.

[@daverutherford6401]

Annie you are comparing what the QEC currently has rather than it's capabilities when 'fully stocked' don't forget the CDG is fully operational with a full complement of aircraft, QEC only has a fifth of its compliment so far. with regards to nuclear propulsion i fail to see how this benefits any Aircraft carrier as aircraft/ammunition/water/food etc all have to be replenished with regularity, also the accompanying frigates destroyers etc are not nuclear so will need to replenish fuel etc, a carrier needs its escort screen otherwise it is basically a rather large sitting duck.

[@garethrowlands]

@@daverutherford6401 even eight f35s is pretty potent though

[@daverutherford6401]

@@garethrowlands They are indeed mate

[@alexandrejarnier906]

Just to precise one important fact, Cdg it's a catopar and this made a huge difference. Because you can send your aircraft with full ammo and fuel.

[@silvernblackattach]

Not even difficult. De Gaulle is nuclear powered, has cats, and can launch bigger weapon loads..... and has practiced with American jets.

[@danielbennett4486]

Both have practiced with US jets. I don't see the pount in looking to what's better. Thryre both allies. Are both would compliment each other.

[@patfarget-nm3mt]

“super étendard”? when is this video from?

[@stephensenior3589]

Britain built the first aircraft carrier, the first true jump jet, the first electronic computers, These days as members of NATO it doesn't matter who has the biggest best of this that or the other working as an integrated battle system is the most important thing now and in the future.

[@ENGBriseB]

Nearly 50% of the world's inventions and discoveries came from the UK.

[@JULIENSELLIER]

@@ENGBriseB Oh wow and we say the French are arrogant , I do hope you accounted sausages and beans within the 50% of world inventions ...

[@azzajames7661]

​@@JULIENSELLIER He stated a fact, mate😜 So, chill😆

[@JULIENSELLIER]

@@azzajames7661 me too

[@sylvaincroissant7650]

​​@@azzajames7661a fact my eye... Even in aviation, many of the terms are French because the early inventions in military aircrafts came from there. The same goes for Artillery (French word) , and so on... The French invented photography, audio recording, cinematography, modern chemistry, microbiology with Pasteur, or even dentistry with Fauchard. The stethoscope too. Discovered radioactivity. Or invented the metric system, which revolutionized science and engineering , is also French. As you cannot rule out the inventions from say the Germans or the Italians, where do your 50% come from? Your butt? Unless you conveniently count the cheese and pickle sandwich and tomato beans in your tally? Now the English are very good at loving and promoting themselves. I remember a conversations n with an Englishman who explained to me that they were called English because they looked like angels..true story...I thought it cale from the anglo saxons tribes from Denmark. But hey. They probably looked like angels too.

[@frankwoods3915]

How do they measure up against Putins smokey old carrier, is a more important question. I have always struggled to understand why the UK decided to invest in a full size carrier, only to hamper it with a ski-ramp. The ski-ramp was introduced as a compromise for smaller carriers which operated the Sea-Harrier, since they were too small to warrant the need for a catapult to operate larger, conventional warplanes. The QE class are large dnough to operate the full range of strike-attack, anti submarine, air superiority and transport aircraft EXCEPT that most of these cannot work with a ski ramp. Nuts.

[@azzajames7661]

The twin island design is undoubtedly the future, as the British lead the way, like with the original Aircraft carrier and the angled flight deck and the catapult system and arresting gear are all British designs😉 Well done Great Britain 👏

[@kp78686]

Pretty much everything invented what's useful (except electricity) came from Britain, if it wasn't for Brits the Arabs would be still riding camel's and fishing in sailing boats. That's literally a fact! The UK, US, France stand side by side, we'll see how much loyalty the Ukrainian's give in the future

[@Hattonbank]

@@kp78686 The Ukrainians are giving much more than loyalty, they are giving blood by the bucketload every single day!

[@RaySqw785]

@@kp78686 🤣🤣😂

[@RaySqw785]

the no stealthly ugly 2 islands aren't copied by any other nation on futur aircrafts carriers, and the design has been provided by the french, a french pal worked on this design

[@azzajames7661]

​@RaySqw785 No aircraft carriers are stealthy as they are the size of a small city, lol The twin islands will be used by countries in the future, as were the catapult, arrestor gear, angled flight deck, ski-jump,...ect all were thanks to the Royal Navy(Great Britain;)

[@gorlestondoug]

In my opinion the CDG is superior, the Raphales, being catapult launched can carry much heavier payloads of weapons and fuel giving them more punch and range than the F35 on QE/PoW. Furthermore having catobar allows the CDG to deploy E2 Hawkeye aways aircraft which the RN carriers cannot. The Raphale has a greater availability % than the F35 which in any case the UK is having difficulty in procuring enough units to meet the demands of the RN and RAF.

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

The French carrier has better defence and AWAC's , Rafael is no slouch either! The QE, is bigger and more modern, and can carry up to 72 aircraft, in theory, the F-35 should be the better aircraft too? Propulsion is pretty irrelevant, as all escort and support vessels will be conventionally powered anyway!! If the tech lives up to it's hype, the F-35's should win the day! ???

[@Carrera-gp9od]

Why was he calling it a battleship ?

[@Martyntd5]

The problem is, when the CDG is in dry dock for repair or refuelling (which can take years), the French have no aircraft carrier at all.

[@XR190190]

I mean, the Prince of Wales cannot be operated at all as well. So when the QE is at dock, the british have the same issue

[@Martyntd5]

@@XR190190 No, firstly we have 2 carriers, so if for some reason one is in dock, we have another. If the CDG is in dock, the French do not have another. Secondly, the QE class are diesel electric, they don't take years to refuel and they don't need to dock to do it. This means the Brits can keep at least one carrier at sea all the time. The French cant do that.

[@XR190190]

@@Martyntd5 You should check the latest Royal Navy report. They are mad because Prince of Wales is basically rotting, not operational at all. It has lots of issues, no planes, nothing. And because they don't have money. In theory, the UK has two carrier. In reality, it has only one.

[@Martyntd5]

@@XR190190 Not really. If the QE broke down, they'd just transfer the crew and planes to the PoW. How many years would it take to fix the CdG if it broke down and what would the French use instead? ...and how old is it now? 35 years? 37? Given that it took the French nearly 20 years to build the CdG, they'd better start on the replacement now.

[@originalkk882]

@@XR190190 I must have been imagining that carrier called Prince of Wales recently filmed working up with F35s off the coast of the US??? Or maybe you are 100% wrong.

[@briansilver6196]

The french carrier is the best,it can be adapted to use different kinds of planes ,the qec can only use f35s

[@paulbromley6687]

It’s Not important, as long as they are allies it is the enemy that need worry.

[@EnglishScripter]

Well it can hold 72 aircraft, 40 Fixed Wing, 32 Rotary wing. Big misconception that HMS QE can only hold 40 aircraft in total.

[@mac2626]

The Queen Elizabeth class are not 919 feet they are length 932 feet/ 284 meters, width 240 feet/ 73 meters, with a full load displacement of 70,600 tons, and a surge capacity of 72 aircraft, they also hit 32 knots in training.

[@northman9227]

Coper and Gold which is better ? ...

[@Zab_SB]

I’m British and I really wish the QE class had gone with cats, I feel like it’s missing versatility like not being able to launch its own Hawkeyes. Least we are allies and can compliment one another.

[@iwanderpaths]

Cats are being developed for them

[@Zab_SB]

⁠@@iwanderpathsI heard that, it’s a shame we didn’t have that from the get go though and have more experienced crews. Hopefully the QE class generates enough power for emals.

[@tickerim]

Why show American F35 and not the British

[@georgebarnes8163]

they are the same and the US flies from the UK carriers

[@darrensmith6999]

Both Beautiful Ships! God bless all their crews ! (:

[@briangardiner3520]

The French one goes faster in reverse as soon as the fighting starts. 🇬🇧

[@musa7010]

And the British will not be operational anyway besides being without aircraft 😮

[@mikezaid3219]

which aircraft carrier is Superior?

[@loeffelm]

yes

[@alangunningham5667]

well, that depends if they allow American planes to be on the QE...we don't have even enough planes for one carrier and we already have 2 carriers .....so we have manned the other carrier and allowed America to use as their ship for free .....so if it was playing fair ..15 planes against 40 ....Charles de Gaulle is the winner

[@steve-iw2bg]

What planet are you on?

[@alangunningham5667]

@@steve-iw2bg whats wrong ? you dont like facts ?

[@steve-iw2bg]

@@alangunningham5667 you want the facts? Okay. We have 31 F35Bs with the second squadron standing up next week which is enough to fight a war against any potential threat. The prince of Wales was in America for F35, tiltrotor, and Mojave drone integration not for the Americans "to use free of charge". 24 F35Bs Vs 30 4th gen Rafaels obviously 5th gen takes the day. These are the facts mate.

[@alangunningham5667]

​@@steve-iw2bg here are a few more for you ....only half of those delivered are for the Navy!!! so 16 planes (we only have 30 at the moment half with the RAF but let's go with your numbers ) max vs 40 Rafael's so an absolute win for the French (f35b is the worst version of the f35 (carrying reduced missiles) a+c are huge upgrades compared to b version)...and yes the Prince of Wales is being used for the USA Marines using f35b's and is not being charged...so free ...feeling a bit dumb now?

[@RajBlake7]

The later F35 block fighters are the ones worth buying, and the UK will end up with 70+, only idiots want to buy the first batches and then spend money upgrading them. When Tempest is ready, then the RAF will get it's new wings and the Navy can fill it's carriers with F35's.

[@doogier68]

Put QE, PofW, and CdeG, with Ford and a Nimitz or two and that is a awesome strike force.

[@arno222444]

Easy the CDG wins. For the simple fact that she’s a french ship using french made aircraft. Fully independant. No need to ask an approval to use it.

[@adamking4538]

The U.K. doesn’t need approval?

[@bigarmydave]

What a stupid comment.

[@archiebrannan5854]

Lol just no 😂

[@arno222444]

I don’t think your F35 would work very well if used against the US interests. Ok it’s not likely because the UK is a vassal of the US but i’s a limitation.

[@James-iv9fh]

The uk was the second biggest country involved in the development of the f35. It was a joint program to replace the harrier

[@phileascurtil5605]

Imo having 2 smaller carriers is better than one bigger. If one is hit you can still use the second one. Also a small carrier may have more manoeuvrability and be better to avoid missiles. It also compensate the maintenance problem and the geographical availability. Having a catapult is way better than not as you can launch heavier aircraft, providing more strategic capabilities. Last thing: only being able to use foreign planes on your carrier is just very limiting: you loose your strategic independance as you can only operate following exterior rules.

[@wojtek5596]

CdG is better until she has catapults and QE not.

[@richardprice7763]

If only the French had built two of them. The problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to refuel, possibly up to 2 years so in that time they have no carrier. I still like what the french have done but one carrier is only marginally better than none...

[@simonschrieck2669]

you're right but it's still better as having 2 carriers with technical problems and incidents which happens in the same time as on HMS QE and HMS PoW and forced them to stay on dock...😁

[@Maxyukii]

They will have a second in 2027 i think, we don't know the name, maybe Napoleon

[@bruceburns1672]

The British Aircraft Carrier is Thales designed I believe, so the Frogs come out on top.

[@julienstephan8027]

This shows that the Rosbif can benefit from the best !!! 😅😅😅

[@XavierLeFrancais]

True. HMS Elizabeth class is Thales designed in root.

[@bruceburns1672]

@@XavierLeFrancais What is in root ???

[@XavierLeFrancais]

@@bruceburns1672 In the beginning Thales/DCNS designed the two variants. for french navy and for UK navy.

[@bruceburns1672]

@@XavierLeFrancais I consider it a very sad day that Britain is not capable of designing its own ships, also it looks like the last blast furnace in Britain will be shutting down by Tata as they are losing $200 million a year that could even be pounds, I can't remember, the spiral of decline continues unabated in the UK.

[@OldandCold6955]

More apt is which country is willing to finance the continued expense of continued use.

[@kevinkant6817]

Crimea will be in Ukraines hands in 3 weeks with the help of these two aircraft carriers

[@thisiswhereweare9006]

That'll be the day.

[@shannonhenson609]

You live in Narnia. 🙄

[@bebdohoi4679]

Video does not answer to the question in title…. To me, French carrier is super for its nuclear propulsion, and jets take off systems which allow them to carry more bombs and save fuel. Those 2 criteria are criticals

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

A dumb question, really, but OK.... Overall, the QE class ships (each of c72,000 tons at full load displacement and each innately capable of operating comfortably, full balanced airwings of 60 platforms, all types) are beyond doubt head and shoulders above France's single, older and much smaller current carrier, the C de G. Or more accurately, they are potentially so and WOULD VERY EASILY BE SO NOW if the vermin infesting our Whitehall and Westminster elites could be trusted even somewhat with maintaining competently, just the minimum effective defence establishment this nation should have.

[@robertlee6338]

QE is basically empty without means to actually defend it self

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

@@robertlee6338 Infuriating but absolutely correct. Which will continue to be true until QE and PoW are given full, layered onboard defence systems AND, even more importantly, are able to operate AND are provided with full credible airwings including ALL relevant 1st rank platforms.

[@Daveyboy1066]

Yeah dumb alright the Liz class are just glorified, super expensive helipads that are not even nuke powered (AND WE BOUGHT TWO!). The French carrier out classes it in just about every metric. Speed, range, Air early warning, air wing weapons load capacity, air wing range etc etc, Oh and it can also operate the more capable version of the F35 (unlike Liz) like the US carriers do!

[@Daveyboy1066]

And another OH is that their limited capability is not down to Whitehall penny pinching but BAE systems. Whom told the MOD the design was modular and easily upgraded with catapults and arrestor wires. However after the MOD woke up to the fact they could only fly the least capable and most expensive version of the F35 and they approached BAE for this upgrade they were told it would cost the same as buying a whole new ship, lol. I have heard BAE Systems was desperate to keep this capability from the Liz class, as if the MOD started purchasing relatively cheap F18's to complement the F35's these may become a threat to their lucrative Eurofighter contracts. Whereas the super expensive F35's never would be.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

@@Daveyboy1066 Bae are a vilely flawed organisation but in fact not the PRINCIPAL cause of the so far unedifying QE Class carrier saga. THAT fault, as I said earlier has all along been due to our establishment vermin, and for the reasons indicated.

[@Elthenar]

I would argue that the QE is the more dangerous ship just because it carries F-35's. If we are talking about the ships in a vacuum without discussion how their fighters match up, the De Gaulle is a better design. A modern Carrier just isn't a real carrier without catapults. Being able to launch bigger fixed wing radar, refueling planes and heavily loaded fighters is a capability gulf that is difficult to over come.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

I disagree with the F-35's. Yes they are newer than the Rafale. BUT not good enough to make a clear gap. The F-35 is very fine, is stealth, has in principle more advanced avionics...in principle. The Rafale F4 and F5 after will be a deadly challenger. Even today it is not as clear: the low disponibility and heavy maintenance of the F-35 is not an advantage, and if you want to keep the stealth ability....the firepower is very low in front of the 9500kg of payload of the Rafale. Beside, with the excellent spectra and night/day low flight capacity of its radar, the rafale can be as stealth as the F-35 with twice more firepower for the same size of squadron...with more efficiency and disponibility...beside the Rafale goes on longer distances...for less money in the air....Not convinced of the "game changer" capacity of the F-35....

[@Elthenar]

@@XavierLeFrancais If you believe all that, you are ignorant of what the F-35 can do. The plain and simple fact is that the F-35 can easily complete missions that a Rafale couldn't even attempt. The F-35 can operate as a forward AWACS and it can function as an EW plane. When block 4 drops, it will be able to carry 6 weapons in a stealth config and it can carry almost as much weight in weapons as a Rafale if it doesn't need to stay stealthy. Lastly, the F-35 will also be able to control it's own drone swarms. It can also work with Rafales, it can guide long range weapons that the Rafale carries, allowing the Rafale to hit targets it can't approach. So yes, the F-35 is a generational leap over the Rafale. The Rafale being better in at range and speed doesn't make up for it.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

@@Elthenar Don't think the F-35 can do everything its not miracle. on same way the Rafale F5 will also have drone swarm....nothing fundementaly different. But F-35 will still lacks payload and in other case if it is full paylaod it is not stealth anymore and has still less paylaod than the Rafale....just facts. In a mission form a carrier of course a better range is an advantage. Think what you want , that doesn't change facts.

[@Elthenar]

@@XavierLeFrancais The F-35 can't do everything but it can do pretty much everything a Rafale can and more. The Rafale only has more range if it uses drop tanks. An F-35 can carry drop tanks and get about the same range. Most importantly, if it doesn't give up it's stealth for payload, it can attack targets a Rafale just can't. A Rafale that tried to attack a target surrounded by SAM sites would get destroyed. An F-35 can attack it successfully. Lastly, and this is the one that people get wrong....an F-35 is cheaper than a Rafale. Because the US is cranking out so many of them, they have the benefit of economy of scale. As such, an F-35C is about 10 million less expensive than a Rafale. So yeah, an F-35 is better than a Rafale in almost all areas and can come close to matching it in those other areas.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

@@Elthenar Let me be clear: Objectively the two fighter are excellent, but different. With cons and advantages. The F-35, and especially the F-35B on the UK carriers, in the same config (so with and without drop tanks) has less range. Just a fact. Stleath is fine but that tech has a big drawback: internal weapons means less payload and thus less firepower. It's just logic and facts. If the F35 will remain stealth, it has a payload capacity of 2800kg in internal bay. If it puts external extra weapons it goes to 8400kg max. In the two cases it is less than the 9500KG of the Rafale. The Rafale, combat proven, in Libya goes on first strike (all ennemy air defence still there), destroyed many tanks colums and strategic targets without any loss or detection. The SPECTRA avionics system on the Rafale is well knowed to be one of the best in the world on pair with what you can find in a F35. And with the F4 standard it will be upgraded to make it even beter. So yes, the two fighters can do the same job. Only difference, on flight lower the other higher (if in stealth config, otherwise it is the same). On economics a Rafale M (the most costly) is 78M€....an F-35 is 143M€....One hour flight on Rafale is 14K€; one hour flight on F-35 is 22K€ (at least), The disponibility rate of the Rafale is 90% and is 75% at max for the F-35....the Rafale has proven very reliable, the F-35 has MANY bugs...(more than 800 in 2020...many of them still there...), engine problems, problems to flight with bad weather (thunder), a gun that doesn't hit the targets..... In conclusion, The Rafale is older but a very capable fighter jet, mature, more economic and reliable with excellent disponibility and firepower, and totally multirôle in same flight. It is a total industrial&technological succes and its performances on battlefield already proved it. Tha's one of the many reasons it is the most buyed plane after the F-35 nowdays. The F-35 is newer, has the edge of stealth (but that commes with some operationnal drawbacks also), is more expensive, less reliable, etc...But it is still a relatively new fighter jet, has an excellent potential but has still to mature a lot. But is it a surprise? Hey, It took the Rafale 10 years to mature form F1 to F4 (and F5 in preparation). So to be honest, maybe it will be a better comparison in a few years when the F-35 is more advanced in his developpement. I hope you understand I'm passionnate by aviation, and here to speak about it and not to determine "who has the biggest" 😅

[@steve-iw2bg]

Top speed is 32knt. 50 aircraft not 40, 36 F35 and 14 merlin helicopters and a potential overload capacity of 72 aircraft. Sortie rate is 110 per day. Supers have been withdrawn from service. 30mm guns are not fitted on QEC. Didn't mention the mistral missiles on CDG. Csg 21 ended in 2021, she is currently in Portsmouth after completing CSG23. The Charles De Gaulle CSG currently comprises carrier FS Charles De Gaulle (R91), destroyers FS Forbin (D620) and FS Provence (D652), and replenishment ship FS Marne (A360). Found this on usni news. Obviously the carrier with 5th gen fighters wins the fight. You guys need better researchers.

[@steve-iw2bg]

@@JimCarner the sortie rate figure is all over Google. I'm sure that's why almost every western air force is buying them. The F35 is an amazing capability to have in the air, it's basically an AWACS, ISTAR, EW, fighter bomber that no 4th gen can match no matter what apa say who's assessments are massively out of date and focused completely on pre production aircraft.

[@steve-iw2bg]

@@JimCarner I'm not finding every source for you, Google HMS Queen Elizabeth class sortie rate and the top 4 or 5 articles will tell you 110 per day. Name a 4th gen aircraft that can get within 100 miles of an s400 Sam site. Storm breaker, spear 3, jdam, and paveway IV are all integrated or are going to be integrated with block 4 upgrade and all have SEAD/DEAD capability. Name a 4th gen aircraft that can use off board missiles from a destroyer or Sam site within 50 miles of an enemy aircraft without being detected. An F35 doesn't even need to use its own missiles. Like I said I'm not going by what APA say when they wrote it in 2012 with pre production aircraft. It means fuck all. There are 6 6th gen fighter programmes, 2 in Europe, 2 in America, 1 in Russia, and 1 in china. The only reason to keep building the next generation is to keep a competitive edge just like all military procurement, it's not exactly every air force is it? You don't need an anti ship missile to mission kill or even sink a warship and JSM land attack/anti ship missile is also being integrated as well, which again makes a great SEAD/DEAD weapon. In short the information your spewing out is from the beginning of the JSF program and not up to date.

[@raywhitehead730]

June 2024. The Elizabeth is Still under repair. Its been months. Source: UK Defence News.

[@jeffshriber6120]

When you add in the U.S. Navy as a comparison, you have 3 different P.O.U. Purpose Of Use for 3 different Navy's. The US Navy needs carriers for power projection and keeping vital sea lanes open. Mostly it fights for international commerce and free trade on international waters. With the ability to fight and win in long range extended operations overseas in perpetuity which includes anti air anti surface anti submarine strike recon and electronic warfare. The British navy is a signator to NATO and a partner with the US, it's naval mission is to protect UK interests abroad. And the French navy is primarily to protect French interests I. Expeditionary operations. So 3 different carriers, 3 different POU,s 3 different countries. I personally would like to see other alied nations picking up the check sometime and invest in Nimitz and Ford class carriers like we do so we don't have to be the ones to always save everyone else all the time.

[@jeffshriber6120]

Catobar design is probably the best way to invest, based on range and ordnance capacity of aircraft vs stobar. Not a big fan of F35B, it keeps crashing. Single engine carrier aircraft is a mistake.

[@lawolffamily]

The next french carrier will PA-NG, 310 m and 75 000 Metrics tons then 82 700 tons us ( 100 000 tons us pour american carrier ) it's not too small :)

[@jeffshriber6120]

@@lawolffamily no idea what your saying, what is pa ng? Metric tons? Huh I'm an American the last fool to try metric in my country was Carter. Try not speaking in broken English abbreviation metrics because no one understands.

[@XavierLeFrancais]

@@jeffshriber6120 75 000 tons is 11810478 stones (?) in imperial....sorry but just use metrics as everyone in the world, just more logic system....to make it simple, the successor of the Charles de Gaulle (PANG) will be comparable to the Nimitz class in size.

[@jeffshriber6120]

@@XavierLeFrancais no idea what your saying, this thread was a long time ago it part of the reason most people don't like the french is your hauty arrogant attitude demanding stones to tons to hands convertions. Nay e this is why France lost the last two world wars and needed america to bail you out. I've been to France I wasn't impressed by the attitude, stay arrogant good luck.

[@alphadevastator6140]

Charles de gaulle is tried and tested in active combat. Our carriers are not yet tested so 1 - 0 to France so far

[@NicolasViard-kc9dm]

One is nuclear powered while the other is fuel powered. Hard to compare.

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

Nuclear powered isn't necessary for an aircraft carrier because you still need fuel for your aircrafts and the support vessels to protect your carrier like the destroyers and frigates so you might as well fuel your carrier as well.

[@ENGBriseB]

You still have to eat and the jet's need fuel. The British carrier has a range of 10.000nt miles at 30knots and top speed of 33knots. Plus by 2025 there will be 48F35B lightning Jet's and the 2nd tranche up to 74 by the by the 2030s then maybe up to a 100. Britain's building with allies a 6th generation Jet. Plus the British has two carriers and they are nearly twice as big. Plus like the French carrier they are always escorted by other ships plus a nuclear powered submarine.

[@Then.72]

God help them over crewed vessels during warfare because when hit them people will suffer as the fleet can’t help them escape and the radiation will get to them

[@athrunzala6770]

@@eyeofthetiger6002 This is why we have the Jacques Chevalier. The Jacques Chevallier has the capacity to carry 1,500 tonnes of material, 13,000 m3 of fuel and can contain up to 20 20-foot containers. It is also capable of providing food to support around 2,000 people for two months.

[@MMW70]

The French carrier can reliably make it out to sea with a full compliment of aircraft so its (so far) a silly question, innovative though the British ships are, there is further development required

[@barrymiller3385]

Where aircraft carriers are concerned size matters. At 50% larger there is no doubt that the QE class has the greater potential as currently configured. But the new French Pang is expected to be even bigger than the QE at around 75,000 tons. She should be quite a ship when she takes to the water in the 2030's.

[@rogermadeley7413]

They are already talking about giving the QE & PoW angled decks to fly drones off which will add another ten thousand tons at least so big changes ahead.

[@Louis-ej1lx]

PANG will enter service in 15 years and be twice as expensive as QNLZ.

[@barrymiller3385]

@Louis-ej1lx I suspect Pang will cost rather more than double the price of QE. It's going to be fascinating to watch the project progress.

[@rogermadeley7413]

Bound to be more expensive the way things are going up.@@Louis-ej1lx

[@BFOP15]

Building two large aircraft carrier to operate STOVL as the F35B is stupid. The US marine operate the F35B from amphibious assault boats. The US navy operate the F35C from their carriers. For the price of the QE class the British could have had 4 amphibious boat, more F35B and a much more flexible ship in terms of mission. QE was initially designed to operate F35C or F18 superhornet but as Rolls Royce is building the engine of the F35B , somebody thought it was a better idea to make the QE class operate F35B. It's a total nonsense.

[@cryptogypsy3950]

I can't understand why the UK built 2 x massive 'carriers' then instead of fitting catapults and buying the 'Navy version' F-35C (Carrier) they bought the (Marines Version) F-35B. Net result, No air-to-ship missiles, No over-sea radar/avionics, short combat range and no nukes (F-35 Bomb bay too short, due to lift-fan). Even the old Uk Bucaneers carried nukes! Also no on-board defensive missiles. The UK carriers are lightly-armed floating targets. They won't even see (hyper-sonic) trouble coming because their helicopter-based 'warning radar' has shorter range and flight duration than fixed wing radar (Hawkeye) that the French launch by catapult. What a mess. - less firepower than in the 60s despite huge cost. The UK carriers could probably handle an unopposed 'evacuation', using helicopters, but little else.

[@MarkBruceUK]

Which is better? I'm gonna guess someone who doesn't roll over and surrender, wait to be liberated then take the fish and money to stop the boats?

[@francocanuck]

You will never give up your stupidity ,carry on

[@adrien5834]

Cry more, Brexitard.

[@sylvaincroissant7650]

Against a nation who flee at Dunkirk, protected by the French, and wait for the Russian to win the war? The jury is still out ...