What It's Like On Board Britain's NEXT Aircraft Carrier | Forces TV

[@N75911_]

Amazing feat of British engineering, these marvels will serve well and prove fearsome alongside US Carrier strike groups!

[@oakleymaliska5359]

and im proud to say my sister is one of her 700 crew ! :]

[@MartinIDavies]

UK needs a couple more these puppies.. and Canada and Australia could use a couple each as well

[@macabreaztreonam]

Cant afford the planes mate :D

[@kennethsim4817]

Bruh we have 5 aircraft carriers about 7 submarines and 15 frigates and destroyers

[@macabreaztreonam]

@@kennethsim4817 I should clarify, here in Straya we can't afford f35Bs at all, although if we could we could fit them onto our LHDs at great expense. Our army just got a new service weapon, new helicopters and new combat reconnaissance vehicles and is buying new APCs. Our navy has just got the LHDs, is buying new destroyers and frigates and patrol vessels and subs and helicipters. Our air force is buying 73 f35a s, drones and possibly some bombers. Money is tight.

[@richardgoode4761]

Fleet to increase.

[@jaranis9273]

Kenneth Sim what country is that?

[@JohnSmith-ts8xp]

I'd be keen to know what design alterations if any were made to the Prince of Wales following the Queen Elizabeth's trials and testing?

[@leohouwing8040]

John Smith Off the top of my head, I recall that there was an issue with the propeller shaft seal. I assume a fix will also be made on PoW before she puts to sea.

[@gujikujtutu2330]

The acent is beautifull

[@1chish]

Wasn't Sir Simon Lester the admiral in charge of delivering the first Astute sub? There was a series of excellent programmes about it and I am sure he was the one chasing onsite RN Officers and BAE managers ..

[@winstonchurchill237]

Slowly, were getting back our military.

[@omarbaba9892]

Soon we will be at our former glory

[@tams805]

Such a small number of necessary crew is very impressive. Especially considering the number of people required on US carriers. It's like a large village compared to a town.

[@tsu8003]

Less crew means less supplies and less accommodation and also would mean less loss of life during wartime! Sometimes less is more!

[@jb76489]

Tams80 part of being a smaller, less capable ship is having a smaller crew, not sure what you find so amazing about that lmao

[@1IbramGaunt]

@@jb76489 because it means it's a more modern, more advanced design? needing less to achieve the same or better?

[@jb76489]

@@1IbramGaunt "needing less to achieve the same or better?" yeah, cause a carrier that has half as many aircraft, can do fewer than half the sorties per day and only has a range of 19,000 kilometers is the same or better

[@1IbramGaunt]

@@jb76489 how far can the crews and planes aboard your oh-we-never-need-to-refuel carriers go without food and jet-fuel? :) range figures really don't mean that much in the real world; as for how many aircraft if you took out the unneeded transport helicopters and such and we were on a war-footing it could carry a lot more F35's, we ARE talking about a ship almost the same size as a Nimitz-class here, space is not an issue should it be required- but it WON'T be, what you anti-QE-class people don't seem to get is that we don't NEED to have what the Americans think they do

[@TechGaming45]

Did he say sea harriers????

[@BTDub]

Sea Harriers and Sea Kings I heard... both meant to be out of service by now

[@alexriddock177]

It'll be good to see a Harrier in flight again!

[@BTDub]

@@alexriddock177 yea if they start flying harriers off the Queen Elizabeth class carriers that would be amazing!👌🏻

[@aaronb2779]

I think it was just meant as a comparison to the old invincible class carriers

[@indiabill]

TechGaming45 I tought he said that anorl

[@augustejones112]

Great job lads keep it up!

[@emilytruman5709]

China have been expanding there fleet a lot over the last few years and so has Russia and japan. These countries are preparing for war so we need to build our navy back up and we need hundreds of thousands of personnel not just for the navy but for all branches of the forces. By building more of these carriers and navy ships and submarines it will mean more jobs in the uk and boost the industry and then carry on making ships and sell them to other countries which would bring money in. It’s a win win for the public and our government.

[@CharlesM84]

Go Navy

[@KillingDeadThings]

A Beautiful thing in a hulking lump of metal way. I still think it was a big mistake not to design the flight deck able to handle other planes from other Nations.

[@Albertkallal]

Well, cat and trap fighters also need a lot of modifications. The USA only has one fighter for the carrier (f18). The f16, F15 and f22 for example can't land on a carrier. So only the f18 is available as a choice until they get the f35 C model.

[@fakecubed]

​@@Albertkallal You're either being deliberately misleading, or deliberately ignorant. The US Navy has operated numerous different fighters or fighter-bombers over the lifetime of its catapult systems, but in addition to these it operates numerous other aircraft in more specialized roles, giving US carriers a much wider number of missions. These new UK carriers can launch and recover a grand total of one fixed-wing aircraft, in a single combat role, and must base all future aircraft design considerations on this serious limitation. Compare to the Nimitz-class which has operated the F-4, RA-5, RF-8, F-14, S-3, EA-6, A-6, A-7, and today operates the F/A-18C Hornet, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (which despite its name is an almost totally new aircraft), the EA-18G Growler (similar to the other F/A-18s but with a very different capability), the E-2 Hawkeye, and the C-2. The newer Ford-class carriers replacing the Nimitz-class expand this multirole capability with a more efficient, gentler electromagnetic catapult (as will the carriers built or upgraded by basically every other nation on Earth over the next couple decades) allowing maximum compatibility with any current or future aircraft designs. The UK wanted an electromagnetic catapult for the Queen Elizabeth-class, too, but for political reasons weren't willing to wait for delivery on it. Not very forward-thinking, but at least you can keep looking back and telling yourselves you invented the carrier or whatever it is you Brits keep saying in the comments whenever somebody questions the design of this one.

[@Albertkallal]

@@fakecubed And what exactly did I mislead anyone about? The topic or point was that VSTOL fighters are NOT as limited as one might suggest. For example, I simply pointed out that the return store rating on the f35 B is higher than an f18 on a carrier with cat + traps. That does not hint, suggest, imply or change anything you stated here. And what you stated changes ZERO about my claims. I also pointed out how “low” the sortie rate is for cat + trap. I assume on a military channel ANYONE with basic knowledge about carriers is those with cat + traps achieve a high sortie rate not because they have cat + traps, but ONLY due to the fact that they have 4 (or more) cat/traps in operations. While everyone knows and seen a cat/trap system in operation, what THEY DO NOT know is that slow cycle time (2 minutes and 45 seconds) IS RATHER SLOW!. So I was just pointing out that cat/trap systems are SLOW in terms of launching fighters compared to using VSTOL fighters. MOST DO NOT know this. So while your information is wide spread knowledge by everyone, clearly my information triggered you like a little girl, right? If you have ANY information that contradicts what I stated then please by all means point out what is wrong or what I stated. And I am big fan of the EMAILS system. However, it is a complex system, and it had too many teething problems. And I think it is ironic that the system was SOLD on being gentle and causing less stress on airframes, and yet that system is causing too much stress on the f18’s as I write this (f18 with external fuel tanks are NOT permitted to be launched from the Gerald Ford). So, if the EMAIL was sold and supposed to be so gentile then how come f18’s can’t take off right now with eternal fuel tanks due to over stressing the f18 airframe? Hum? Again, this “stress” issue is NOT big deal and as I write this a fix is available, but not yet deployed on the Gerald Ford. Worse is the launch failure rate is about 250 times that of steam. And a failure can mean a lost plane into the sea. And these days, planes are not cheap. The 2nd issue is if the centrifugal generates are damaged, then you lost your catapult. With steam, you can at least attempt repairs with touches and welding, and likely get one of the catapults up and running after battle damage. Heck, take any metal scrap and weld over damage and holes to the steam system. I question how robust of the computer rail system will be in the heat of battle, or when they been damaged as to what kind of “field” repairs can occur with such a large and complex system. You see, the nuclear reactors cannot supply the rails direct. So you have 4 big 20,000 lbs flywheels that you spin up to speed. (Lots of moving parts, right???). Then an expensive “cyclotron” system pulls energy from those big mechanical flywheels during a launch. (You see, if someone turns on a toaster or other systems, and the lights dim during a launch, then power drops and the plane lands in the ocean). So you need to “isolate” the power draw DURING a launch from the power being drawn from the ships generators (powered by the nuclear reactors). It would have been REALLY nice if they could have used super-capacitors in place of those big mechanical (and heavy) flywheels. However, higher density capacitors were not available in that time frame (they are now). And you can’t draw the full power to the rails from the ships generators (the nuclear power plants), so the big mechanical flywheels are used to “draw” power from the ship at slower rate to STORE up energy for a cat launch (you spin them up - recharge time is 45 seconds - LONGER time then to launch one VSTOL fighter). So we have: A system that was sold as being “gentle” on airframes currently overstressing airframes. A system that is supposed to be FAR less mechanical then steam systems, yet it has an AMAZING hodge podge of mechanical spinning flywheels and mechanical bits and parts that are NOT proven to be reliable right now. At least with steam, we been using that system for 50+ years. And the steam has a natural “built” in “sponge like give” that is not so hard on the planes airframes. The above explains why Trump suggested that steam was proven, works. And the real insult was have what 4 time the cost overruns on that system? (I am just pointing out Trump was WELL briefed when he made those comments about using steam - he had VERY good information and reason to make that statement). Worse yet, is for maintains when you spin down those huge mechanical flywheels, you can’t isolate them (so all launchers are down for the count to do maintains on just one unit). With steam, you can weld and repair the system when damaged - it is a long time proven technology. And there are LONG established operations that allow the steam cats to be isolated or turned off one by one. Right now it still looks that steams systems are more robust to damage and repairs then the EMAILS system. I do think in the long run, they will make EMAILS work, but it been a real messy affair from start to finish. Anyway back to the VSTOL issue? Only a FOOL would ignore that the F35 B has higher return store ratings then the f18 with cat + traps. That is WHOPPER of new information, don’t you think? And MOST ignore the slow cycle time of a catapult. (As I pointed out, close to 3 minutes). So once again FEW realise that compared to a catapult, VSTOL planes launch at a much much faster rates (and that means mores sorties per unit of given time, and that means more force projection). Never suggested, hinted, and implied in ANY WAY that catapults are bad idea or system. Never suggested, hinted, implied in ANY WAY that a VSTOL only ship is better. However, it is a GREAT idea to bring some balance to this discussion. MOST people rag on VSTOL due to lack of knowledge. I am not one of those people! So, I am pointing out is that VSTOL fighters like the F35 B have removed MOST of the limitations that we had in the past for VSTOL fighters. And for lower cost, and force projection, the LHA “wasp” class with the f35 B is a game changing option for the marines and the US military in terms of air power projection. Dog bites postman? Well, nothing to see here, move along. Postman bites dog? WOW - that is news!!! As for fighters on USA carries, you only have the f18 right now, and the supers. So for a VERY long time, ONLY one fighter was available on those carriers. No f16, f15, or f22’s. So, options have been limited here, and until such time the f35 C is deployed, the choices for fighters is still rather limited. I do think the addition of v22’s on WASP class, and even ships like the HMS Q will enable deployment of air to air refueling abilities for such types of ships - that’s going to change this game again in big ways. So, hope the above helps you out here - just pointing out some facts. (And I’ll tip my hat back at you - you also are just pointing out some facts - but they are ones that everyone knows!).

[@manicmute9440]

@@fakecubed - Single combat role! If you're that stupid then your entire comment is worthless.

[@bulletproofkam7931]

It can and will host American f35bs, and not many nations have carriers anyway!

[@carlb4741]

Physically complete my asrse . These ships will never be complete without catapult & arrester gear. The fact that F35bs are already practicing rolling landings says everything. With arrester gear & catapults the ships could sail with US Navy F35c squadrons on board, true interoperability with the allie that we are most likely to support in a war ( not discounting French Naval Rafales if a crisis occurs within 24 months in the South China sea ). The military industrial complex has a lot to answer for. Ships based around the F35b are basically commando carriers !.

[@topbanana4013]

They did well in the Falklands mate that's why they stay with the same type jet more versatile

[@ThePalaeontologist]

68,000 tonnes isn't it? Or even up to 70,600-72,000 when fully loaded? 65,000 tonnes is a bit inaccurate isn't it? I think that was the planned figure, but both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are easily heavier with increased fittings.

[@orkstuff5635]

'Sitting at 65,000 tons' (or possibly tonnes) is what he said, which could well be its current weight with another 3,000 tons (or possibly tonnes) still to be added over the next year or so.

[@nickbreen287]

It powers Aberdeen too!

[@ricmora4482]

The technical guy confused port with starboard when describing the cambered ramp location, but very impressive otherwise.

[@jasonking1553]

Did he say Sea Harriers and Sea Kings? I am really confused?... I thought both are now out of service and the F35 and Merlins replaced them.

[@Dagr8soldjer]

Jason King merlin didn’t replace the sea king. The sea king was retired and nothing has been introduced to replace it. We will continue using merlins alongside the JSF.

[@jasonking1553]

@@Dagr8soldjer Is the Merlin not now doing tasks the Sea King once carry out? And brought in a transition period? We definitely do not have Harriers anymore.... So confused why he said it will facilitate both as they are no longer in service?

[@Dagr8soldjer]

Jason King I think he was using the old aircraft as an example to put into context the additional capacity that this carrier has as opposed to the old one. Obviously in the interest of fairness when comparing the two carriers’ capacities he should use the same aircraft for reference. So I think he meant that it COULD fit that many as opposed to it WILL fit that many harriers and sea kings. Yes I believe the merlin has absorbed the sea kings duties until the MOD finally fund a replacement (if they bother at all), but I would refrain from saying the merlin replaced the sea king incase it misleads people to believe that the merlin is a brand new aircraft. Cheers.

[@bulletproofkam7931]

Some Merlins have replaced sea kings for early warning and also use the same dome as sea kings.

[@bulletproofkam7931]

He said it as a comparison so you get the idea of how many aircraft can be heard in the ha far. Not enough in my book though

[@Ai-he1dp]

just in time for brexit.

[@1chish]

And your point was exactly?

[@douglastodd1947]

WE NEED ANOTHER ARK ROYAL.

[@saykhulhassan5235]

Are they going to build HMS Birmingham frigate next because I live in Birmingham

[@saykhulhassan5235]

Jon .Snow there’s no such thing as HMS Islamabad and HMS is British only

[@1chish]

@Jon .Snow Oh look at the 'really clever' idiots making arsewipe comments. Feel better Sweetie?

[@Acc0rd79]

Good job, now build 2 more so you have enough firepower if the time ever comes that you actually need them all at once!!!

[@para7843]

8 years to build a ship bloody hell take your time haha. Good to see the royal navy with two massive aircraft carriers.

[@jb76489]

danimayb I guess you guys forgot everything from when you had the largest navy in the world lmao “Great” Britain indeed

[@para7843]

@@jb76489 true ww2 we had the biggest navy in the world but now with cuts we haven't

[@jb76489]

@@danimayb " And with only 7-10 billion in the pot I think we did real good!" it was 10 and for 30% more you could have had a ship that carries twice as many aircraft, can do twice as many sorties a day and only needs to be refueled twice oh well, have to take victories where you can i guess

[@Dagr8soldjer]

8 years between 6 shipyards 😂 the white star line was much quicker...but then again they had problems with deaths even before the iceberg

[@manicmute9440]

@@jb76489 - And what ship is that? These ships will be far cheaper to run than any other super carrier, are more efficient at carrying out sorties, and require less crew. So stop talking out your arse you dumbass.

[@henrystanford5144]

No catapults 🤔

[@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618]

henry stanford no need

[@diogocamara6375]

@@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618 it's needed, if u British didn't put it in is because you are stupid... You will lose payload capacity per aircraft and u will not be able to launch planes with bad weather... For such a modern ship it is a decision that I can't understand

[@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618]

PT Stuff it’s simple it’s designed around the f-35B hence it doesn’t need one. Won’t be able to operate in bad weather? It already has.

[@diogocamara6375]

@@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618 f35C is better, it just can carry more weight because the catapults give it the power to have enought speed to fly with max load in 2 secs... Bad weather can happen but a US aircraft will be able to launch in situations that UK won't be able to

[@quasar_33b]

@@diogocamara6375 not true, if any catapult carrier lists forward in large waves the plane would be shot into the sea with a ski jump that can't happen

[@jordiegundersen1465]

Is the propeller and rudder sufficiently protect from torpedos??

[@100mufti]

7 years to built wow, the Brits must have strong unions. Might need to import some Indian workers like those Arab Countries do post Brexit. Dubai went from a Desert to Skyscrapers in like 11-15 years

[@jayspik6498]

Like everything in the UK construction was slowed down cause of government infighting but also cause they knew there were going to be delays in getting the first F35B's

[@manicmute9440]

It's called human rights.

[@richardpoblador9177]

God bless Global Britain :=).

[@leary4]

It's a good looking ship no doubt about that but I heard they carry no armament at all. I'm not sure I believe that.

[@shotleylad]

You heard wrong.

[@magecraft2]

Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun and M134 Minigun. Also escorts ships as well :) .

[@leary4]

@@magecraft2 I dunno anti ship missiles are getting so insanely quick if they're close enough to us ciws I think ur gunna be saying hello to alot of fast moving metal. Seems like a modest anti ship missile might be in order I'm sure ya could make room on the aft Island. Maybe they have some new black box just in case jamming gear.

[@magecraft2]

@@leary4 Yea but she will always have at least one type 45 destroyer with her, As she will always be part of a task force trying to fit to much on her is counter productive when you have dedicated anti air / anti missile ships. TBH I have heard all this Anti ship missile talk many times in my life (I am old :) ) and while it was definitely a problem in the Falklands war defensive systems are actually incredible at the moment.

[@leary4]

@@magecraft2 Flat tops have always been at least half target but the new (est) talk in the states is always that the Chinese missiles are becoming good enough and fast enough to force carriers several hundred miles further out and since the f35's are already sacrificing a lot of range it could be something that would force a draw before the game begins. I dunno there are certainly no shortage off pieces on the board. We seem to be able to rain down a hundred cruise missiles w/o too much effort. It's good to see the Royal Navy get some proper carriers underway and like I say it really is a good looking ship. I was on the fist edition of the aegis class cruiser and she had some problems and limitations by the time the last one left service aside from appearance the first and last were as different as model t and formula one racer. I guess If ya have 3 or 4 of the beasts available ya can always tinker on the one in for refitting.

[@Locutus494]

3:57 "It's intelligently designed" LOL , what?! You must not have seen those two big, inefficient, space wasting islands breaking up the deck space... They waste so much space and make aircraft handling so much more complicated.

[@saykhulhassan5235]

Locutus494 they’ve just measuring and designing to show that is enough space for aircraft and it’s not a waste of space

[@Albertkallal]

How? If you have one island blocking the runway then 2nd not in the way. The only argument here is if you have an angled deck to separate launch runway from landing. I'll certainly concede advantages of angled decks, but without angled decks then 1 or 2 deck towers really don't effect anything here.

[@Locutus494]

@@Albertkallal It has nothing to do with the islands blocking the runway. It's all about the smooth and efficient flow of the aircraft around the deck. Having two islands and having them right in the middle of the deck puts them right in the way of where aircraft need to move, making towing, taxiing, loading, fueling, arming, and spotting of aircraft more complicated and require more steps. There's a reason the Ford class has a smaller island and moved it further aft compared to earlier US carriers. In addition to the obvious that an additional island takes up more space that could have been used to carry more aircraft and/or have more above deck ready to go.

[@Albertkallal]

@Loctus494 Right, but they don't have all the deck space reserved for the traps. The cable traps take up huge amounts of space. They still have room for two landing spots while even taking off planes, And without cable traps, there is ample room to move planes past the towers while NOT interrupting air operations for landing and takeoffs. (they only plan to use rolling landings when sortie rates are low). Because of so much additional deck space, they were able to trade space for a additional tower - they don't chew up large amounts of deck space with cable traps. I am open that one tower gives more deck space, but having that additional tower was deemed worth the extra deck space - space that they had. I would accept if they used cat + traps, then space for a 2nd tower simply would not be possible. Given that they can move planes past the towers, they are in rather good shape this way. 3 sets of cables, and the deck space when they spool out, and spool in the cables means equipment can't be anywhere close to those cables - not to mention the crew that manages and sets up the cables during operations.

[@Horizon301.]

Locutus494 it’s all about safety, a dedicated aircraft control centre is far more ideal. It’s not about numbers it’s about effectiveness. The British think differently and didnt want a large aircraft carrier that can just carry loads of planes

[@agwhitaker]

0:30 - Anyone who does anything in the U.K. can get knighted.

[@brewt1mer]

It’s no nimitz class..too small

[@willmartin1033]

It's virtually the same size as a Nimitz.

[@willbrant2160]

RABBLE ROUSER Unfortunately it’s about 80 metres shorter 15 minutes thinner and 40,000 tons less in displacement so the nimitz is far bigger however i argue it is more advanced than the nimitz class as it has become outdated compared to the Qe ships

[@willmartin1033]

@@willbrant2160 It's about 100ft shorter that's all. In 2 ships that are around the 1000ft mark that's not a big difference. The Nimitz is definitely bigger but "far bigger" is pushing it. If you put them side by side you wouldn't see a huge difference with the naked eye.

[@bomber7837]

Larger ship, larger target.

[@willbrant2160]

@@willmartin1033 yes, however, the extra height and depth allow a much larger amount of aircraft (i get some are on deck) However I do love the Qe class carriers.

[@nickbreen287]

Yay we can fly 1 type of fixed wing warplane!!! Cat and trap, lots and lots of types.

[@latinman1736]

Nick Breen cat and traps cost loads pf money and make sortie rayes really poor.

[@simonhool3073]

Nick Breen Cats and traps are good if you have a bottomless budget, you have to maintain the cats and traps as well as repair them over time and repair the small bits of damage they do to aircraft as well. The ski jump works and is effective so what's the problem? The F35B also uses vertical landing and take off.

[@tams805]

Planes used for cats and traps have to be extensively modified and have far shorter life-spans. Sure, it's not to the same extent as V/STOL, but it's still significant. Enough navies are looking at operating small carriers or converting LPDs for a V/STOL carrier to make sense. That and the RAF now having aircraft the can pretty much as is land on carriers (they would not accept traps and cats aircaft) is an efficient use of limited resources.

[@simonhool3073]

Mr. Ouija Yes it can, google it.

[@noodles169]

Cats and traps put a huge amount of stress on a carriers deck, which Leeds to a lot of maintenance, and a lot of time in dock

[@monkieie]

So when is the next one being built... or is the royal navy pinning it's hopes on a single entity?

[@valerie80yearsago90]

monkieie single entity? The Royal Navy already has the HMS Queen Elizabeth. The RN will field two aircraft carriers: The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince Of Wales.

[@tams805]

Three would be nice, but quite frankly the MOD can't afford it. It's not just the cost of another carriers itself. In fact the cost for such a ship isn't that high. It's the need for and therefore the cost of all the escorts. Currently we could just about scrap together enough for both carriers to be on active deployment (very unlikely). If we had the original number of Type 45s and Type 26s, then we could do it; but we don't and won't. Now, with a third carrier, we probably would have ended up with only one on active deployment, so the escort problem wouldn't be too bad. We may also regret not having a third when one eventually has to go in for a long refit. Ships cost a lot of money just existing though, even with a skeleton crew and no need for escorts.

[@Pemmont107]

We have two, you muppet.

[@Spaceman9090]

This is the second one. Sea trials end of 2019.

[@Locutus494]

Someone didn't watch the video at all, did they. It's literally ALL ABOUT the second Queen Elizabeth class ship...

[@metronetrail]

Very Quite - We have no planes

[@simonhool3073]

Bullet-Catcher We own 15 F35B's, 9 of which are at Marham in England flying regularly. The others are in America flying under British pilots until those are ready. QE has embarked F35B’s for the first part of air trials being successful and are now on stage 2. No aircraft carrier in the world, even the Americans don’t start with aircraft. The UK have purchased 48 with the look to increase this to 148 roughly.

[@tams805]

And the US's Ford hasn't had planes on it yet either.

[@Locutus494]

No planes? Are you living under a rock? The UK has had F-35s for years. The Queen Elizabeth isn't supposed to be in service yet anyway, so it doesn't matter.

[@Locutus494]

@@tams805 Yes, the Ford AND the Queen Elizabeth have both had planes aboard.

[@simonhool3073]

Locutus494 thank you for repeating what I said.

[@themarkus05246]

Second

[@matjov]

So?

[@themarkus05246]

I was second to comment

[@themarkus05246]

It’s a meme

[@matjov]

That stopped being funny a long time ago.

[@themarkus05246]

Are you sure about that

[@kellenhietpas7349]

I love the british but with that being said i'd rather read subtitles than listen to them talk.

[@timmurphy5541]

Same back at ya.