The British Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Shocked The World

[@mac2626]

The Queen Elizabeth class carriers are 284 metres that’s 932 feet in length, 73 metres that’s 240 feet in width, and they are 65,000 tonnes light. Projected to be around to 75,000 tonnes fully loaded. In time of war they have a surge capacity of between 65 & 72 aircraft depending on aircraft type.

[@DurhamXo]

It's an excellent platform no doubt about that very well laid out few teething issues but they can fix that no problem I'm sure Both of them fully equipped would be a very large thorn

[@No-timeforimbeciles]

HMS Queen Elizabeth is currently in dry dock for repairs, this is shocking to world, not even 6 years in service, maybe one day britain will have both in service at same time. !!

[@neilsbs8273]

Its actually been launched 10 years and 7 in service. Every major warship has a docking down every 5 years or so. Its a non event, preventative maintenance is required on every ship from a 20mtr survey vessel to a 65000 ton aircraft carrier.

[@No-timeforimbeciles]

@@neilsbs8273 😂😂😂😂😂, yes okay, you continue telling yourself that if it makes you feel better !

[@mac2626]

Queen Elizabeth Class are actually 284 metres/ 932 feet by 73 metres/ 240 feet, and they are more like 70,000+ tonnes full load, 72 aircraft at surge capacity and they hit 32 knots in acceptance trials.

[@ENGBriseB]

They can carry 72 Aircraft each and do over 30 knots.

[@liewjames2852]

That's only an aspiration. How many aircraft can UK afford to put on board?

[@Dingdangdoo]

Currently only 18.

[@Markus117d]

Cost isn't the issue, What is the issue is not having the planes built yet Still awaiting delivery of nearly ½ the initial order..

[@7521eric]

B.S.

[@Markus117d]

@7521eric No its not..

[@66oggy]

Once you start comparing the cost of these to HS 2, the two aircraft carriers are a bargain, and they actually look like they work, unlike the former, which will never work, even when it's working.

[@grahammartindouglass2413]

Most expensive scrap vessels ever built..British embarrassment to the tenth degree...😂😂😂😂.China looking for a suitable target to test their new ship to ship missiles and high speed passive active torpedoes but even they too embarrassed to buy them as a target..😂😂😂😂😂😂 viva BRICS viva South Africa 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@ushas6528]

LoL 😂😂😂😂😂

[@Stewpot-p5l]

Talking a load of nonsense because a carrier powered with reactors needing too many crew members to operate is ridiculous for naval warfare! That would have been thaw worst plan for the carriers although I do think they should have been smaller like the Audacious class carriers because larger carriers are a very easy target

[@christianterraes8334]

Très bien 👍.... Une bonne flotte.

[@wartechmilitary]

yeh brother

[@extremathule982]

HMS Queen Elizabeth Shocked The World......in fact, sometimes it is even able to navigate... even if some planes are lost at sea 😁😂😂🤣🤣🤣

[@jorgelrevene]

The real shock to the world came when it became known that the propeller drive shafts of her sister ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, were both bent and that the ship would have to spend a long period in dry dock. God save the king (from another embarrassing situation).

[@bryanglover1925]

Its OK its all sorted now friend 💯👍

[@leemurf2322]

It hit an object on the seabed! Do you think anyone is at fault for that? HMS Queen Elizabeth which is built identically to Prince of Wales did its first worldwide deployment 2 years ago without issue and both carriers are currently deployed. One thing the Royal Navy builds well is warships hence why so many countries are buying the type 26 frigate and the Australians just pushed the French overboard for a better quality more capable UK built submarine 😂

[@vMaxHeadroom]

These things happen when you build something new! The good news is that we built two and the Prince of Wales is now fully fixed and on duty...The experience we are now gaining as we are back in the carrier world is great and only good for the long term as the world seems to be getting crazier by the day....To all those men and women who protect us, I am so grateful to you!

[@ArchieFatcackie]

There’s always one

[@Markus117d]

They weren't bent They were slightly misaligned when the ship was built, Causing stress in the couplings. 100% a construction falt, Even then the ship sailed for a couple of years before one of the couplings failed, And not a design flaw as HMS Queen Elizabeth has had no such issues.. HMS Prince of Wales shaft missalignment was fixed in drydock..

[@harrykey2448]

Looks like a big target to me. Better off spending the money on land based aircraft. missiles and missile defence systems.

[@JC-kz3ut]

Disgrace that they are "protected" by 5 dinghies either side. Since when did we let the Septics be the model example of what a navy should look like?

[@patriotunion7211]

Keeping Britain safe? We cant even stop dinghies crossing the English channel ffs!

[@jamesknight3070]

Annoyingly we are commissioning brand new Batch II Patrol Vessels, but immediately sending them elsewhere. HMS Trent has been sent to Guyana, with her permanent station being Gibraltar, and it's a similar story for the other four.

[@Phlegmwahn]

@@patriotunion7211 Pssst, under International Law it’s not illegal to use a dingy to cross the English Channel. Neither is it illegal to land in a foreign country provided you declare immediately upon arrival your wish to claim asylum! It is also a breech of International Maritime Law to refuse to assist a vessel in distress! Successive Tory governments have to have a scapegoat for their inability to govern effectively so they blame ‘illegal immigrants’, just as the Nazi’s scapegoated the Jews in the 1930s.

[@neilsbs8273]

Whats that got to do with the Navy?

[@freedom14639]

The real shock to the world is when she hasn't got the jets for her.. And still hasn't. Embarrassment

[@7521eric]

And due to recruiting problems they can't even man both of them at the same time. Leave the naval warfare to the big boys.

[@neilsbs8273]

Only 34 but if your maths says none then you must be right, those ones i saw on her deck recently must have been blow up models.

[@neilsbs8273]

@@7521eric Oh please tell me where you got that gem from and if you are referring to the (Un) United States tell me how your new carrier is getting on? can she go to sea for more than 30 days yet, is the EMALS working right yet? At least after 6 years ours is fully operational unlike some.

[@7521eric]

@@neilsbs8273 still working the bugs out in the Ford Clas. A fully operational Brit mini carrier is still no match for a current Nimitz. That's probably why yours is named after a girl. A fully operational mini Carrier is worthless if you can't fully man it. But don't get me wrong they are still good support carriers. Cheerio!

[@neilsbs8273]

@@7521eric Oh dear I usually give people like you the benefit of the doubt but you are one deluded person. A difference of 50m in length is hardly a mini carrier and even your Admirals, the real ones not the Armchair ones like you, have admitted the ship is better in many respects. Now you toddle off old chap and have a nice day.

[@Phlegmwahn]

What a load of bovine excrement! The RN does not have enough sailors or ships to create an effective, deployable Carrier Group. They can only deploy one carrier at a time with a cobbled-together support group from our NATO allies.

[@alangunningham5667]

If only one of them would have a full complement of aircraft , but no not even one of them, the carriers shouldnt have even been built at least till they had a full complement ready .... and thats not even the worse part , the 35b is already well outdated , there are only small technical improvements since these aircraft were bought , where as the f35c(carrier version) is on block 4 (4 major) upgrades , giving better stealth, electronics, range, avionics and weapons loadout ... are there any planned upgrades for 35b, NO .... who got paid for this huge blunder ? even RN are now planning the change the carriers to normal carriers so they can get the f35c and the RAF can get the F35A (land base fighter also on block upgrade)

[@svenda7401]

Just call the us next time u build one

[@Gsmooth10455]

I love HMS QE, but how exactly did it "shock the world?

[@ianclegg9572]

The shock is it got Built

[@chaplainsoffice6907]

Pray for the suffering on both sides. These are the sons of Abraham at war.

[@elizabethmcintyre8529]

Why does everyone have to have a go at the British military all carriers ships navy army special forces in all countries do their bit it's ignorant to put any of them down

[@xenomorphelv4265]

Yeah, the whole world has been shocked and still feels the effect of it, don't you feel the shock of this diesel device ? don't you ? The whole fucking world has been shocked, you can't argue with that, if you reply saying you haven't been shocked it would be a shock for all of the people who have been shocked. shock it shock it. don't you want any more shock ? for one shock purschased we offer one free shock.

[@66oggy]

That was shocking, it shocked me, and the shocks will still shock me long after other shocks have stopped shocking me.

[@xenomorphelv4265]

@@66oggy shock it shock it !

[@davidmurphy228]

Royal Navy, not British Navy, having served on both I'm sure that there were no catapults, which you kept showing, nor is there an angled flight deck on either QEC. They are a lot better to serve onboard than the public propaganda would have you know, and have a different set up than the US CVNs.

[@wartechmilitary]

🥰🥰

[@neilsbs8273]

Unfortunately Spud the mainstream media loves to hype every little problem these ships have, problems that any ship will have. That along with social media tends to make everyone an Armchair Admiral these days.

[@williampascoe7954]

Why so much repetition?

[@liewjames2852]

What is shocking is how much it costs !

[@davidbrown2571]

The cost is large, BUT not as large as the money our governments waste , but they aren't bothered as they can raise your tax.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

Around a quarter of the cost of a US carrier

[@mariuskuhrau761]

Yep, but the British Aircraft Carrier uses steam turbine propulsion which means it has to be refueled on a regular basis, while the Americans Aircraft Carriers uses nuclear propulsion and will last probably its entire lifespan. The clip that starts at 05:10 clearly shows a large flotilla of several USA Aircraft carriers and other strategic supporting vessels, including a submarine or two somewhere beneath all those ships

[@Radictor44]

US carriers still need support for food and jet fuel replacement. So even though British carriers use diesel & electrical generators, both nations carriers still require support vessels for food & jet fuel, so carrying along diesel as well isn't a problem. Besides for the Brits, it's cheaper and still just as effective, so can't blame them really.

[@glastonbury4304]

​@Radictor44 ...plus the QE Carriers can dock anywhere in the world, whilst Nuclear Carriers can't, plus whats the point in nuclear propulsion, other than for Subs!!

[@g8ymw]

The Royal Navy carriers are NOT steam turbine. They have two Rolls Royce gas turbines and 4 diesel gererator sets The last steam turbine carrier to serve in the Royal Navy was HMS Hermes R12

[@glastonbury4304]

@@g8ymw ...exactly

[@Gsmooth10455]

@@glastonbury4304 Nuclear carriers only need to dock where they have to be. Who cares if they can't dock in NY City, Miami, London, Sao Paulo Brazil, Finland, or Nova Scotia. If war breaks out that's not where they're going to need to be. On the West Coast of the US they're docked in San Diego, the Pacific fleet is docked in Guam and Japan. The Atlantic fleet is anchored in Virginia and Jacksonville Florida. So your comment that "Nuclear Carriers can't dock anywhere in the world" is as useless and worthless as telling a homeless person that "if you're homeless then buy a house".

[@7521eric]

Most formidable in the world my a--! 36 planes? A Nimitz class or the French de Gaul could take on both these carriers at the same time. The ramp take off or vtol also limits how much fuel or armament its aircraft can carry. Waste of money. Don't get me started on the diesel engine vs nuclear powered.

[@neilsbs8273]

These carriers sortie rates are on a par with a Nimitz and carry 5th gen which will knock 4th gen F16s and F18s out of the sky before they even see them. Nuclear is only any good if your escorts are Nuclear therefore no advantage in the real world along with the cost both dollar and time of refuelling them then decommissioning them and the lack of ports that will accept Nuclear.

[@drandrewallan]

Sorry but they have no got anything like the US navy’s nuclear carriers!

[@neilsbs8273]

These are only 50m shorter and there is a good reason not to go nuclear and very few good reasons.

[@WestwickKnightley-w5r]

Yeah, I guess the British really like filling up at 3,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel for primary propulsion!! Nuclear energy would future proof the ships. Emals and lasers are not options now.

[@frankthompson6503]

3 Rd British aircraft carrier HMS Charles

[@57menjr]

Nothing shocking small !

[@vishaldhekale]

😂😂