Why QE Carriers are Considered a PART-TIME Fleet

In this video we talk about various reasons why the Royal Navy struggles to afford its second aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales. #notwhatyouthink #nwyt #long
00:00 How UK Tried & Failed to Get Rid of it's Second Aircraft Carrier
2:49 Why Some Currently Want to Retire HMS Prince of Wales
4:58 Why HMS Prince of Wales is an Unlucky Ship
8:26 Why Most Carriers Can Be Considered Unlucky
9:57 Why Royal Navy Downsized From 3 to 2 Carriers & Why its a Bad Idea
12:59 Are Aircraft Carriers a Waste of Money?
15:36 Why QE Carriers are Considered a PART-TIME Fleet
Music : Epidemic Sound
Cut the Mustard - Tigerblood Jewel
On the Trail - Tigerblood Jewel
Dark Water - Magnus Ludvigsson
One Last Drama - Philip Ayers
The Old Timer - Tigerblood Jewel
Ostinato - Vieveri
As History Unfolds - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Sidelined - Dip Diet
Prescient - Howard Harper-Barnes_2
No Stone Unturned - Brendon Moeller
Hyena - Tigerblood Jewel
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
Royal Navy MOD News License
Storyblocks
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."

[@rogerwilco2]

One carrier is no carrier. These ships need a lot of time in port for maintenance and such. With two carriers, you can always have one operational.

[@QALibrary]

also on operations you always need 2 or a friendly base within 15 to 30 minutes of flight time - if one carrier can not operate you got the second to allow aircraft to land

[@jonyungk]

Even two is iffy, if one is in refit and something happens to the other. Three or four would have been better, even if potentially prohibitive from a financial standpoint.

[@cyborg_v271]

​@@jonyungk True but the likelyhood drops considerably. That is why we operate 4 SSBNs but thats for a Continuous at sea deterrence. You dont always need a carrier in service. Its a very useful option and having 2 means one should always be ready. Same as towhy we dont have enough fighters to fully equip them both, you just jump them over to the other carrier, pretty much everone uses this strategy anyway.

[@alandrew4131]

What is the use if it is shit!

[@stuartemmanuel3735]

​@@cyborg_v271 it must be so embarrassing to know the Chinese has 3 operational carriers , while your puny navy is but a shadow of its former self , how did the British sunk so low is beyond me .

[@oaw117]

I feel like telling workers, "Hey this thing you are working on is going to get mothballed the second you are done with it" is not the best way to have them put in their best work.

[@Fishing4Fish96]

Exactly what I was thinking. Tell me my work is useless then I’m not going to put in the effort I did on the first job.

[@uptowndunker6346]

Or telling them its going to be scraped when they are done

[@gdubya83]

Watching Dark Skies on here is even worse when counting the number of planes that were only a failed experiment but a ton of money.

[@9SMTM6]

Jup. All these people talking about bad luck... Bad luck ain't systematic. It's certainly possible that this WAS (and will continue to be) "bad luck", but when enough bad things happen to one thing that don't happen to the "identical" other thing, then perhaps they were not identical to begin with (meaning one was inferior which lead to the difference). The difference between these things isn't just theoretical. If it was indeed just "bad luck", then that isn't in itself a reason to mothball the ship, as it would be just as likely that the Queen Elizabeth starts misbehaving and the Prince of Wales starts being reliable. But if there is a quality issue with the Prince of Wales, then that should be considered when deciding how to proceed.

[@doc0core]

Do you really think any of them care???

[@SMChurchill]

It comes down to so few ships being produced by the UK these days that the shipyards no longer have the experience or quality control necessary 😞

[@gordonbradley3241]

Built by private contractors ! Dedicated to profits for foreign investors! !

[@jasalexander-hain2601]

no the problem with this class started with constant changes in the design which only plays into the contractors pockets. UK can build good ships and subs but rubbish at tendering contracts and stop start with design...same happened with ajax

[@julianmorrisco]

It comes down to austerity and Brexshit. The UK has blown its own leg off, thanks an imperial hangover, lots of magical thinking and some racism.

[@jasalexander-hain2601]

global austerity yes, melting banks yes, covid 19 made in china yes, all adds to smaller purse but brexshit I disagree, the EU will not survive as it is for another decade and I predict the UK could become part of a more elite, fair, lessons learnt EU club@@julianmorrisco

[@jasalexander-hain2601]

last decade UK shipyards have built planets most advanced aircraft carriers and nuke subs and new destroyers and frigates, yards have plenty experience. navy needs another 5 modern frigates then more less hi tech ships - coastal patrol, fast attack boats, mine hunters

[@andrewkratochvil9260]

It’s sad to see the state of the British army and hard to think it was once the most feared military power in the world.

[@aml1234561]

British army??? Duh!

[@Daz555Daz]

When the massive British armed forces were funded by the spoils of the world's biggest Empire it was easy. Today however the funding for the military comes only from the British tax payer and frankly they have more important things to worry about like rent and paying the electricity bill.

[@NP-bx6qc]

@@Daz555Dazso true😂

[@stephenhick7100]

Who writes this drivel, just to excite armchair warriors, most of the comments are equally ridiculous 😂😂😂

[@rickwilliams1204]

A few hundred years ago you mean

[@barnykirashi]

It's even more fitting when you consider that the WWII Battleship Prince of Wales was also unlucky enough to be sunk 3 days after Pearl Harbor after being transfered to the pacific.

[@jonyungk]

Not to mention the mechanical failures that plagued her during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The fact her gunnery was actually more accurate than Hood's against Bismarck tends to get overlooked because of it.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

@@jonyungk they were still having mechanical failures with her sister ships in the late 40s. I didn't know her gunnery was more accurate than Hoods which is surprising considering she was so new she still had dockyard workers aboard.

[@towgod7985]

That was during the Japanese rampage through the Indo/ Pacific, what was your point?

[@grolfe3210]

The 1941 PoW did more in her months of service than many ships in decades. She dealt a significant blow on the Bismarck and made an heroic run to Malta escorting a convoy. In the Pacific, she and her consort were two ships that were sent to defend against the might of the Japanese Empire, sent prior to the US entering the war. That is guts not bad luck.

[@towgod7985]

@@grolfe3210 Bloody Well Said!

[@garymcbrearty5845]

A quick fact here, when we sent the 2 carriers to the south Atlantic for the Falklands conflict, 1 carrier had only half power available due to an engine problem, but it still did it's job, both as a show of force and operationally as a carrier and sending only 1 fully working carrier would of been a deadly mistake. The Prince of Wales may be suffering now but the problems will be sorted, better we find her flaws now rather than finding them in troubled times of war

[@silverhost9782]

Yep, not to mention the difference in capability between the two CVLs sent down to the Falklands and these newer ones is absolutely massive. They're about 3 times the size. If the UK wants power projection, it needs both

[@towgod7985]

Well said!

[@everTriumph]

And the two carriers concerned were slated to be sold off/scrapped. The government had to do some very rapid back-pedalling.

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

Exactly, mate, but unfortunately, there's a lot of "world of warship" players in the comment section who feel the need to spout off what they 'think' they know.

[@nickbannister775]

And despite the propaganda many of the crew on those Falkland Carriers wished they’d got the Ark with its Phantom’s etc. many of them had previously served on her and knew the shortcomings of the Harrier in inclement weather, speed, range etc. In San Carlos bay we prayed for air cover many times and were lucky we didn’t lose more ships.

[@user-dg6zw5tp4s]

The Zumwalt class, the Independence class, the Freedom class, the Ford class, etc all have had serious sad problems. This is what happens with first-in-class.

[@jasonmyneni8605]

The HMS PoW is not the first of her class.

[@danielduncan6806]

This is what happens when you make weapons of war, for unknown battlefields, and wars that don't exist.

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

15:35 15:36

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

The Zumwalt class is an absolute failure. And more ugly than I am.

[@dynamo1796]

@@jasonmyneni8605 Neither are the following Zumwalts. All have issues. There is no point to your comment.

[@toshe.6690]

there are reasons for some of the troubles these ships have, we do not have any manufacturing industries left in the UK. there used to be a vast pool of experienced engineers and tradesmen that the warship builders could call on but which have now gone. by far the biggest problem is the politicians, who are simply clueless. they couldn`t make their minds up whether these carriers would have fixed wing or stol aircraft, each time they changed their minds it cost millions.

[@jasalexander-hain2601]

nope we can defo build good ships at glasgow and subs at barrow, its all modular connects these days and these yards have the trades guys. problem lies with MOD tendering and not finalising the design before construction commence

[@bificommander7472]

I wonder if some of those technical problems are due to the shipyard going "If they're scrapping this one as soon as we're finished with it, why should we bring our A game? Just rush those pipe weldings."

[@cybersentient4758]

lol same thoughts here

[@jjOnceAgain]

It sounds like a mix of that and the crew slacking off for the same reason and not doing proper mantainance

[@TheRezro]

It seams so. Worst part is that there is actually good reason most navies have two Carriers, until they literally cant afford more then one. Ships can't operate indefinitely, they would land in repairs from time to time and those tend to take long time. Having two ships you can alternate maintenance, having always at least one operational. US Carriers actually maintain 9 Air wings for 11 Super Carries. Usually only 4-5 is operational at the time, 4-5 is refreshed (vacations, training, lighter duties). It is because usually you have 1 Carrier on duty, one in preparation and one in the refit. Typically at least 3 or 4 Carriers is completely out duty in the dock (difference in numbers is because with more carriers you can plan more effectively). Light/Helicopter Carriers/Assault Ships are more task oriented, so they don't stay on duty all the time and you can do preparations in between operations. But you still can't do much if ship land in repair dock. So it make more sense to have two. In short. UK government is run by monkeys.

[@krashdown5814]

Flog it to Australia, we'll give you Au $1,000,000,000 for it, we're use to fixing other countries mistakes, we're getting very good at fixing design mistakes too. We are a member of the AUKUS alliance, and will be working with you on designing and building the new Orca class nuclear propelled submarines. We'll probably need to employ a thousand or so Brits to man the bloody things too, we can barely keep three Collins class deployed. That's the problem with Aussies, as soon as we knock off work we want to grab our surfboards and head for the beach. Not easy for this Tree Lopper who lives in the Blue Mountains.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@krashdown5814 HMS Prince of Wales took 3.4 billion to build it, why will they sell for 1 billion dollars. It will take 4 billion dollar as bare minimum for it.

[@Vicarious_Heart]

Prince of Wales: "No one wants me..." Kuznetsov: "END THIS LIFE OF PAIN!!!"

[@uptowndunker6346]

Gerald R Ford: give me some beer and and a bandage goto flex mowahhh

[@jasonchiu272]

​@@uptowndunker6346 *Home Depot sounds play*

[@nicholasvinen]

Fun fact: the Royal Navy has 3 more aircraft carriers than the Russian Navy.

[@MuffHam]

Its understandable Kuznetsov has issues its 40 some years old. But Prince of Wales having these issues as a brand new ship. Is a joke lol.

[@Sevastous]

@@nicholasvinen Which is funny itself because its motto "rule the waves" royal navy is now being compared to a navy which didnt even had a ship when the motto was coined. (In 16th century). A fascinating decline of the GB

[@Cobra-King3]

I kinda feel sad for the name "Prince of Wales" Last name-holder was forced into her first deployment with kinks being worked out on the way to battle, only for her to be crippled by Bismarck Then she was sent out to face the Japanese and suffered a 1-in-a-million hit that doomed her and her crew

[@luckyguy600]

Hence the term 'unlucky ship'

[@stevee6316]

Unbelievable that the second aircraft carrier has all the problems that should have been sorted after the first build.

[@golden.lights.twinkle2329]

British workers not hired on merit, hired by box tickers.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

The same goes on with the British fleet of nuclear submarines, both SSBNs and SSNs are plagued with faults and problems, the major one being the Rolls Royce PWR2 reactor that equips both class of subs and the result is the entire fleet of SSNS and the entire fleet of SSBNs being at dock, rarely one sub is at sea most of the time they are non operational. As an example for the entire summer of 2023 all SSNS and SSBNs were in port, no nuclear deterrence at all for the Brits..

[@Horizon301.]

@@brunol-p_g8800there is always a nuclear deterrent at sea

[@xXBisquitsXx]

@@brunol-p_g8800 Interesting you seem to have a lot of knowledge of the operations of RN SSBNs and SSNs, which isn't something that is made public and if you did in fact know these things you wouldn't be posting them on the internet. If your going to try to make things up don't be so specific.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

@@xXBisquitsXx that’s not a secret, that’s open source. As of summer 2023 all RN navy submarines were docked at port and none at sea, including SSBNs. The issue is mainly due, like always, to political decisions, in this case retiring the two left Trafalgar class SSNs, which were the only ones operational while the entire fleet had the PWR2 reactors’ issues managed, the same day.

[@vibrolax]

If a country wants to maintain its capability to build its own armaments, it must build them continuously, regardless of current needs. It's simply the cost of sitting at the table.

[@imsreki]

At the Table hardly fits two - USA and China and both don't need UK there

[@frainhairylobes3065]

This is the crux of it. The thing is for UK it is increasingly difficult to sit at the table cuz ain't got no dosh.

[@divinestrike00x78]

I mean even here in the US we made the mistake of closing a bunch of our shipyards after the Soviet Union fell, so now we don’t have the yard capacity we need for the pacific.

[@trolleriffic]

@@frainhairylobes3065 There's no shortage of dosh, we just spend it badly or on the wrong stuff. The MoD is filled to the roof with civil servants and every government department and state-run organisation has no difficulty finding the cash for more bureaucrats and managers while front line staff who do the actual work get pay freezes or made redundant. Reminds me of the NHS hospital trust that complained about a lack of funding that meant it was only able to increase its nursing staff by 1%... then it came out that they'd increased the number of managers by 11% in the same time period.

[@jeremypintsize7606]

As a French my two euros , why did you don't join the construction process of the R91 (Charles de Gaulle) , French navy could had shared development cost whit Royal Navy... The Charles de Gaulle had a construction cost of 2 566 258 200 British pounds added to a 855 419 400 British pounds of development cost...

[@bruceburns1672]

I'm now 74 , every defense purchase on any large program always stirs the media with the same story saying another white elephant purchase, I've witnessed this all my life, they mostly turn out to be wrong and 10 years down the track they start to come out with positive articles saying at the time of purchase they thought this would be waste we cannot afford.

[@nobodyspecial4702]

Defense spending is always the one thing nations realize they needed to not cut, after it was cut. Happens ever time.

[@Mewithabeard]

​@@nobodyspecial4702 I'll always remember when Ark Royal was decommissioned and the Harriers were retired in a spending review and within weeks of the decision NATO intervened in the Libyan Civial War meaning the UK had to rely on ground based aircraft when good old Ark Royal and a load of Harriers would have been an excellent contribution to the intervention. The armed forces still did a great job without a carrier but it does go to show how valuable carriers are to The UK and how short sighted governments have been when it comes to HM Armed Forces

[@TrangleC]

The British press admits it was wrong? You won't find the media in my home country make that mistake, hehe. They just ignore anything that goes against the narrative and keep telling people to not believe their lying eyes when they get proven wrong. One thing I noticed is that you always get those news about how tanks are obsolete now and will be scrapped every 10 years out of the UK only to then be proven wrong over and over again. As far as I can tell, the result was that the British tank building industry just slumbered away with all the know-how being lost and they had to get the Germans to upgrade the Challenger 2 to a 3 now while Commonwealth member states like Australia and Canada bought tanks from the USA and Germany.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I agree with you and I am a year older. It is the same with HS2; cost overruns largely owing to constant delays by government. Now it cannot afford to even get into Euston.

[@bruceburns1672]

@@johnjephcote7636 What is hst 2 , I'm here in Australia.

[@tabishzd]

Fun fact about HMS Hermes aircraft carrier: It was sold to India in 1986 after serving in the Falklands War. It was recommissioned and remained in service with the Indian Navy as INS Viraat until 2017 as its second ever AC.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

If the Argentinians had simply waited a few more months, there would have been no Task Force, as a piece of human garbarge called John Nott was intent upon selling Hermes to India and Invincible to Australia.

[@RatherCrunchyMuffin]

With the UK's tradition of maritime power, I would hope that the UK could muster at least two reliable carriers, even if they are ski jump style decks. Thailand has one.

[@luckyguy600]

Maybe they might sell it to us? Is it an EV?

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

Russian Navy: "god I wish that were me"

[@jtgd]

*Plays Titanic Theme*

[@antoniohagopian213]

Why would they ever want this hunk of junk?

[@iputubaguswidyawijayaprata8280]

@@antoniohagopian213 Well, One man's trash is another man's treasure

[@sidneyani2584]

they don't need, they're not stupid like the brits

[@redsun9261]

little warmongering monkey of US spent most of its money on a single carrier, now struggling to keep at least some army and arm oocraine...

[@billyponsonby]

10:00 at this point you can see both aircraft carriers and also, just below, Admiral Nelson’s HMS Victory circa 1805.

[@condliffe5831]

Also the Mary Rose (Henry VIIIs Flagship) is in the grey oval building next to that

[@ryujbfvhju1555]

It appears the fashion to bring old mothballed military kit back into service... Let's get Victory back on the high seas!

[@Then.72]

The budget Tory government came along and made a mess of the Royal Navy and also made the two carriers STOVL

[@N330AA]

@@condliffe5831 Now *that* is a cursed ship

[@coachhack]

There are rumours it would be sold to Turkey and UK chief of staff went there recently

[@change_your_oil_regularly4287]

Governments never hold contractors accountable for this sort of thing. They just pay the contract then sign another contract to fix the problems from the first contact It doesn't matter what department of the government it is. I've seen it first hand many many times.

[@Brrain95]

Imagine how stupid the UK government is to think they only need "one".

[@mikelovesbacon]

About as stupid as the French who only built one

[@lesterjohnston8888]

Surely that has to come from the admiltry

[@ulfosterberg1979]

When they need none....

[@drksideofthewal]

@@lesterjohnston8888 The Admiralty would be arguing for more carriers. It comes from the ones who hold the purse strings, in Parliament.

[@macmedic892]

“Two is one, and one is none.” If your one carrier is dry-docked for heavy maintenance, you don’t have a carrier. If a country puts your only carrier down with Titanic and Lusitania, it will be years before a replacement can be built.

[@Pemmont107]

I always thought it was good to have a spare Carrier, for when the first needs maintenance or otherwise gets grounded. Both the French and Russians have being caught out by this. Just seems like common sense to me?

[@reaperking2121]

Yes it is common sense. Infact its not even the best practice. As the other commenter said the commonly held knowledge is that if you always want to have 1 carrier fully operational you actually need 3. This allows for one to be in Dry Dock, 1 to be working up and in excercizes and one fully deployed. Britian could afford something like this but they are being idiots. Honestly I almost wish they got invaded. Same with all of europe. Most western powers have gotten dangerously complacent to the point where they have a shadow force at best.

[@swimfan6292]

No because i'd rather have one well running aircraft carrier then a huge debt and 2-3 shitty carriers constantly needing fixing... Now where do their priorities stand considering Britain can't afford to do anything with such a small fleet anyway. Or just gave the money to the usa as retainer deposit for whenever you might actually want to use theirs..

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

@Wilhelm Eley Yeah, Septics often forget that they're the only NATO member to have invoked Article 5.

[@mikelovesbacon]

Carriers are difficult and expensive

[@mikelovesbacon]

@Wilhelm Eley "Three seems to be the best bang for the buck" - maybe, but remember the new carriers displace up to 72,000 tonnes vs the 22,000 tonnes of the carriers they replaced. The two new carriers are worth 6.5 old carriers.

[@bookreader242]

Very truthful and well presented video. Excellent narration.

[@BeachriderUSA]

Although mentioned, carriers are “only” the central point of a carrier strike group. That means that several ships must operate simultaneously with the carrier. They also have their OWN maintenance-cycles. My last (+related) point is staffing. QE2 was not ready to deploy into the late-2023 Middle East conflict-zone because they had insufficient staffing on ships of its strike group.

[@Kenneth_James]

All these issues really made me appreciate how hard it must be to maintain 11 or 12 carriers.

[@nobodyspecial4702]

If there's one thing the Americans understand, it's that if you have enough carriers maintaining them isn't the problem. It's realizing that they don't need to keep upgrading them every couple years at the expense of a couple billion dollars with no real meaningful gain in capabilities even if General Dynamics says the new systems will be totally worth it.

[@TR-zx1lc]

Yeah, it's also a big part of why the US ditched the JFK and Kitty Hawk; although similarly capable to the Nimitz and Ford carriers, because they weren't nuclear powered, they required a whole separate logistics system. Would the JFK and Kitty Hawk be useful in any war today? They sure would have been, but needing all this special support for them quickly negates that utility in war where logistics are everything.

[@Kenneth_James]

@@nobodyspecial4702 That my friend is a mixed bag of true and false. The upgrades absolutely need to keep pace with advancing technology. Especially, right now as we have an increase in large hostile countries openly and actively attempting to diminish and weaken the US. My problem lies with the contracts going directly to the American defense giants simply because if they don't get them and go out of business it would severely weaken the US military. Which wouldn't even be a problem if we hadn't let them consolidate into the bohemeths they are today. I think they should have divisions that deal in consumer products, commercial energy generation, industrial technology so that the companies will thrive even when they don't get massive government contracts.

[@donparkvideos]

It's easier to maintain that many carriers when you don't have to put money into healthcare, education, or infrastructure.

[@nobodyspecial4702]

@@donparkvideos Could have sworn the UK has universal health care, as shitty as it is there.

[@hummel6364]

I kinda feel like they shouldn't have retired their remaining Harriers about a decade ago, just downsized it to maybe 20 of them while keeping the rest in reserve for parts, while waiting for the replacement F35s to arrive. For the wars of the last decades Harriers would've been perfectly adequate still, and they'd have no problem operating from any size carrier platform.

[@westrim]

They didn't exactly have a crystal ball to tell them nothing would require a carrier for the last decade.

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@westrim That's why you don't make stupid decisions like leaving yourself without operational carrier capacity for a decade... because you can't predict if you'll need it. So you should assume the worst.

[@knwgt5426]

@@mikelovesbacon we got trident we good

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@knwgt5426 Trident isn't useful if we want to protect our economic interests (i.e. global shipping lanes)

[@sinogarcon]

It's that wanker George Osborne's idea. Now he's in the British Museum and trying really hard to dispose the museum's crown jewel: The Elgin Marble. One couldn't help oneself but ask if he is actually mole in the British establishment.

[@captjinxmarine9832]

UK should sue the builder and make them correct everything. These builders are getting away with murder and we are paying for it.

[@FaithfulObjectivist]

Outstanding analysis and scope. Thanks

[@alexis_ianf]

There was a proposal to rename HMS Prince of Wales to Ark Royal. The prince at the time was even ok with it. But in the end, the Royal Navy decided to keep the name it

[@thatonejoey1847]

How fitting. OG wales had severe mechanical issues which only got worse when she arrived at the straight of malaca. Seems like the name "Prince of wales" is cursed and any ship named that will suffer mechanical failures

[@9SMTM6]

@@thatonejoey1847 lol. You and OP are fun. That name has no direct influence on the ship. What might have influence is the workers being told that the thing you're putting your sweat into is getting scrapped as soon as you're done because of some politicians that can't get their shit together. Another influence is people such as you two, that believe in superstition. What does it matter? Simple, because different problem causes lead to different solutions. The name change? Yeah, well, it might help with crew behavior so whatever, but don't EXPECT the ship to do good afterwards, so perhaps don't choose a name you don't want tarnished in future... But more important is the worker scenario, because if that was the cause then a name change won't fix things on its own. Instead you should investigate the issues it might have caused and if solving them is worth it. If it isn't scrap the ship, and if you need a ship bite the bullet and build a new one. And perhaps another one to keep up the maintenance rule mentioned in the video. And also, get rid of your incompetent politicians, not that that is ever gonna happen.

[@thatonejoey1847]

@@9SMTM6 someone is grouchy today. Yes slackened quality standards can and always affect a ships performance look at war time t-34s those things were death traps with awful spawling, terrible gear changes, foggy sights, the list goes on. BUT we cannot forget the human element, humans are supertisious creatures, that lucky shirt you have? Pure coincidence. That lucky charm you had since you were a kid? Confirmation bias. People in the military, specially the navy tend to be even more, ever heard of unsinkable Sam? The cat that was aboard when the bismark sunk and later cossack and ark royal? After the third ship they left him in Belfast to improve morale, you wouldn't want to work in a ship under stressful conditions when you have a cat that was a survivor in 3 ships. Ffs we are the species that if you tell them the water they drank has poison that will do xyz, the person will begin to suffer xyz, this is your ship operator, a superstitious biped. Now imagine this, you are a sailor in a ship that was supposed to be scrapped, it is named after another famous ship that suffered massive issues before it got sunk and this is the third time you had to go to drydock, maybe your hyper rational mind would ignore that as "silly superstition" but to the rest of the crew it sure like its haunted and this can cause a drop in morale which can lead to worse performance across the board. So yes superstitions can affect morale and morale affects a ships efficency so maybe those sully little things can actually affect far more than you can imagine

[@9SMTM6]

@@thatonejoey1847 you list a lot of examples, but you miss that I never contested that superstition has an influence, just that it's direct. So all your examples, whether they're accurate or not, are meaningless. Yes. By all means rename the ship, as I already said in my earlier comment, it may have indirect influence - though I'd be careful to judge a large group of people based on a few people you've met, as you do. But that's likely not a solution. This is what's pissing me off about you and OP. Whether you believe the superstition or not, you were arguing like it is, and thus the solution you've implied (renaming the ship) doesn't solve anything, it may indeed make things worse. I've already remarked on one scenario in my previous comment (tainting another ship name with superstition). There is exactly ONE situation I can think of where the renaming would fix everything. If the ship doesn't have remaining issues that might prop up in the future (wherever they may come from), and if a SIGNIFICANT part of the superstitious people, which according to your interpretation influence the outcome (and I also implied that it's possible) do actually accept that the influence of the name has been averted with that action.

[@MrAoldham]

It was stupid naming these as they did. Ark royal is a name loved by the britsh public.

[@samuelhoney6461]

This makes me really sad as someone who sees this in Portsmouth at times when I visit. it feels like we're being taunted by our government and their constant cuts. No wonder Russian bombers seem to be flying close, they aren't scared

[@deeacosta2734]

BREXIT was an F'up.

[@marcanton5357]

Man you are delusional. Russia will attack the UK never. In fact, no one will, there are no enemies that the UK didn't create by going to their far off country and bombing them. Stop bombing far off countries and literally no one would even have reason, let alone capability, to threaten UK.

[@Dunkopf]

​@@deeacosta2734 as an American I've been laughing at Brexit for years and years and years

[@leafboye33]

@@Dunkopf quite shitty over here

[@Velatus5978]

​@@Dunkopfthen ypu can only imagine how hard all the other european cuntries loughed as Britain cut itself off from it's most importand trade partners, comitting economic sepuko. Or atleast we loughed after we got so annoyed by Britains politicians during Brexit negotiations. I only feel sorry for the people who voted stay or couldn't vote abd now have to live with that decision.

[@dw8609]

I am very sceptical about your assertion that the UK government neither desired nor needed a second aircraft carrier. The French example proves that one carrier alone is next to useless and why would the UK place an order for a third aircraft carrier (HMS Princess of Wales) if you state that having two was questionable? A third purpose built modern carrier will place the Royal Navy second in power only to the USA, given that some of China's are refurbished Soviet era ships.

[@alexpessoa791]

Very good information! Brazil thanks for the Ocean!

[@edmundkempersdartboard173]

An extra carrier you don't think you need is a pretty nice problem to have.

[@chancergordy]

Not when you paid for them!

[@simonsaysjapan]

We need it, but can’t afford it due to financial mismanagement by the government.

[@glynallen8914]

There will come a day in the not to distant future when the British Government will be glad they ordered 2 of these for the Royal Navy. It may be an inconvenience for them right now but they will one day take comfort in the the fact they have 2 of them.

[@rosiehawtrey]

No. They won't. Because if Darth Donald becomes 👑King of the Seven Genomes👑 - then it really will be WW3 and these useless hulks will be nuked before you can say "arrgh". They're utterly and completely irrelevant.

[@TheWhufc4ever]

This.

[@Mewithabeard]

Agreed. I think cats and traps and a third ordered would have been more ideal but at least there's at least 2 of them and I expect they will turn out to be very capable warships

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

I agree

[@James-mb3je]

Not likley, they can't crew them. It turns out it's not just bankers who are motivated by pay.

[@user-sw3mb9fu2w]

We still have four new tankers (Tide Class) the last one built in 2019. Fort Victoria still soldiers on but the other two in the class are still in reserve.Our governments do not know how to plan long term which applies to other things besides defence. Also how can MP's who probably know nothing at all about defence be put in charge. It has always been a recipe for disaster.

[@franzheger2871]

I would go for 3 carriers, 1 on duty, 1 on refill/refull, 1 on upgrade / modify (crew an holiday). What do u want with 1 carrier?

[@ratchet2505]

This ship was troubled because it was produced with problems but it will make it through.

[@ME98878]

Guns or butter.. The UK is choosing butter. Not even a tier 1 military ("no longer a top-level fighting force") anymore.

[@daniellambert1217]

well hms warspite had her technical issues and went on to interesting life time , so there`s hope

[@EvenWaysMusic]

@@ME98878 The UK is always a top level fighting force. It just isn't big. The UK has the best Special Forces in the world in the SAS and SBS and the largest aircraft carrier fleet in Europe and top 3 in the world.

[@ME98878]

@@EvenWaysMusic the US doesn't think so look it up 😆

[@Sevastous]

HMS Prince of Wales and Admiral Kuznetsov. Might be nightmares but we want them to keep going!

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

The comment at 4:18 is incorrect and didn't take into account the already released UK Spring 2023 budget. The British government intends to raise it's defence spending by £11bn pounds, much more than the £700m which is reported in the video. This was reported in British media on 15 Mar, yet as this video wasn't released until 24 Mar, I am therefore surprised it was not updated to reflect the recent such a major pronouncement (UK budget are always widely reported domestically) and nullifies a major portion of this video's assessment.

[@damedusa5107]

It’s completely bollicks. He’s going to extremes with everything

[@jamesvr_7398]

I think people forget that the Queen Elizabeth Class are the biggest ships ever built for the RN, period. These Ships also carry some of the most modern and technologically advanced systems in the world, trying to impliment brand new systems on huge, brand new hull is bound to present issues that wouldnt otherwise be seen on say the Type 23s, a much older and smaller hull form. Issues are bound to occure on a set of ships never before seen in the RN, Its also worth noting, that the QECs are young ships, some of the newest ships in service not many years old, these issues will be ironed out as they get older and more mature

[@blakewu1375]

The problems with the POW probably reflect a lack of funding and attention--notice that the problems were attributed to carelessness and poor maintenance, not the type of new tech problems that plagued the Ford class. The ex-Soviet carriers were all too old and had fundamental design problems and other defects, so it's no a wonder they experienced problems. As to the 2 ships, it's probably a combination of lack of funding for a 3rd or more carrier and the understanding that 1 carrier won't get the job done. As it is, no matter how many carriers UK has, if it doesn't have the funds to adequately maintain or arm them (e.g., not having enough F35s or munitions), then their utility will be drastically reduced.

[@lordtemplar9274]

FYI the RFA has 4 Tide class tankers for resupply, not 1 like the video claims. They entered service starting in 2017 with a displacement of 39k tons.

[@ricardosmythe2548]

The videos full of inaccuracies giving a grim picture of what is a capable platform. Not sure if they've been bought by the commies or weapons manufacturers? 😂

[@mikelovesbacon]

This video gets a lot wrong

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Tide class are oilers, while new solid support ships are required to replace the Fort class ships

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@NotWhatYouThink Tide class and Wave class can both carry more than just fuel. In a recent BBC documentary HMS Tidespring was shown transferring food to HMS Queen Elizabeth.

[@TheREALMcChimp]

​@@NotWhatYouThink Albion and Bulwark weren't scrapped. The capability that HMS Ocean provided was wholly replaced by the QE class. Selling T23s is not such a big sacrifice considering they were at the end of their intended service life. The French CDG carrier had similarly severe propulsion issues early on in its service and has since been a reliable asset to them, as the PoW will be to the UK. With regards to fighter complement and FSS, in the short term the UK can rely on coalition partners to provide those capabilities. Obviously that's not ideal, but in the medium/long term those issues are already being addressed: F35Bs will be delivered and the new FSS class will be built. The UK has built the capability to defend its ideals and interests globally and is willing to do so. This is something we should be proud of; not all wealthy western democracies are prepared to do the same.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

9:06 actually they spent 5 years building the CDG, from 1989 to 1994, nor did it encounter many problems, only a part of one propeller broke during the sea trials and an accident occurred with fire on isolation materials. The flight deck was lengthened during the construction following a decision to acquire Hawkeyes that wasn’t on initial plan in order to give margin for its landing in rough seas, every carrier goes through modifications during construction that’s not a problem.

[@karakarakiri9568]

And the propeler that failed was german and was replaced by french made one later and they had no problems anymore.

[@Perseus7567]

​@@karakarakiri9568 Yeah his whole video is just nonsense, as usual. He's making the UK's military seem so much worse than it is for literally no reason. Like cool, we've had some problems with Aircraft Carriers, somehow that proves our Army is inadequate? Somehow that means all other types of ships like Destroyers are completely inadequate? It's just typical pro-American European-bashing. Like, the statement from the US General "Britain isn't even a tier one army anymore" > yet we keep beating the US by miles in mock battles ??? so wtf does that make the US Army?? I'm not denying our military is under-funded, but that doesn't outright make it bad or unable to compete anymore. "Will last only 5 days" BS lol. The Ukrainians were expected to be overwhelmed instantly with their rag-tag militias and under-equipped "army", now look at them. Somehow the professional, well-trained UK Armed Forces will last 1000% less time than the Ukrainians (that the British Army helped train) did? Right.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? AMWF CAR

[@joriss5]

The building of the CDG was still considerably delayed, afaik it wasn't finished until about 1999 ans was operational from 2001. Basically we made one aircraft carrier in the time initially planned for the building of two, and with almost the budget for two.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

@@joriss5 the building of the CDG was finished in 1994.

[@cammando2363]

Well seeing how the prince spends more time in port and repair than at sea, having half the air fleet doesn’t seem that bad. Technically they only need to put enough air craft for one carrier.

[@sensibledriver933]

These carriers are equiped (or will be) 34 planes each. If we do need to deploy others from the docked one can fly out to increase the air wing.

[@Justintime619]

You would think along of these issues were under warranty as long it took to make and as expensive as it was.

[@Albertkallal]

Well, the simple matter is that Britain had never to my knowledge was going to have both carriers deployed at the same time. And in fact, it looks like the strategy of having 2 carriers paid off. They had problems with the Prince of Wales, so they swapped out and sent the HMS Queen Elizabeth. Sounds to me that was the whole reason to have 2 carriers and it has quite much worked out that way then, right? So, for such rotations, one carrier would have NEVER worked out well, but with 2? Gee, sounds to me like a near perfect and reasonable setup then, right? And as far as fighter jets? The MAX on board was to be 36, but typical is to be about 18. In fact, that was the same number on such ships during the Falklands war (one had 24 on board, but that was not from planning). As for purchase of f35's? The original plan was a total of 138, and only 48 of them were to be F35B models (the STOVL model for their carriers). Now? Well, it looks like they will NOT purchase any F35A models for their air force, and will ONLY purchase F35B models for their carriers. As a result? They expect to purchase around 70-80 F35B models. That means they WILL be able in a pinch to deploy 2 carriers, and each would about 30-35 fighters each. That is still MUCH more then what Britain was able to deploy and manage during the Falklands war. (one ship with 18, and the other with 24 Harriers). and the F35 is MUCH more of a force projection fighter then the Harriers ever could be. So, for now? Sure, they will rotate between the two carriers, and if one is in dock, the other can be at sea. Quite much EXACLTY how things are turning out. There was never to my knowledge the plan to deploy both carriers at once, but that WILL still be a option such as a war or conflict. In the meantime, they will and do have a operational carrier - and with 2 carriers, that becomes rather practical. Seems to me, the idea to have 2 carriers that enables "one" operational carrier at sea is working out quite well.

[@luckyguy600]

Maybe keep one, but swapable nameplates and bells for it. That way the Russians won't know? it might be a plan. Just sayin'

[@QALibrary]

one thing every KZbinr misses out - the UK government at the time paid 320-350 million GBP to stop production of both ships for a year to carry out a redesign for political reasons - even when the shipyard building/designing them said it was a waste of time (hence the charge to UK taxpayers) and by doing it the UK government broke the fix price contract the cost of both ships went from 3bn to 6bn overnight

[@everTriumph]

That's the beauty of a Parliamentary democracy. They will 'parle', slating the incompetence of the other party, until the country goes broke. In truth it's the competence of the same bunch of experts (non governmental) under scrutiny, using the same data.

[@cjclark1208]

Not hard to smell corruption.

[@toonistiny]

Living in Portsmouth, I see these things and I always wonder: What would the headlines say?

[@nfineon]

How much would it cost to finish the 2nd carrier? (5 billion) ok, yearly operational cost? (1.5 billion) Wow, how much to stop all work and cancel right now? (7 billion)....

[@larrybelton5489]

That is a good ship , great that the UK has two aircraft carriers

[@educatedmanholecoverbyrich8890]

Then the Conservatives want us to invaded by the Russians. We are fucked!

[@michaelpielorz9283]

it would be really great if Britain could afford to have two carriers! you can have a carrier more faster than a bed in any hospital!!

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@michaelpielorz9283 It can afford two aircraft carriers. Military spending is as much political as financial.

[@gregoryclark8217]

@@mikelovesbacon given how much the government wasted during the pandemic, we could have bought 3 more. That's not an opinion on the use of money during covid, it's a fact that the money was wasted on PPE that wasn't usable.

[@chrisward7582]

@@gregoryclark8217 £300bn on a flu virus is madness and everyone knows it. Just a shame it took some people so long

[@MyScotty7]

I worked on the construction of this carrier, its the first I ever heard such a story!!

[@andydunn5673]

Good addition. 50 % of everything on the internet is incorrect

[@simonsaysjapan]

How did you miss this? It’s very well documented and reported within Parliament and the ship hasn’t been able to operate as planned either. Our media really aren’t fulfilling their duty as guardians of public interest.

[@user-ie4tt1xp7j]

I think, smaller aircraft carriers are way more economical and practical (something like HTMS Chakri Naruebet), with the ability to fit up to one squadron of airplanes and\or helicopters (plus UAVs).

[@adventtrooper]

The weakness of these is that they cannot launch long-duration AWACs and refuelling flights and are thus limited to operate in theatres where the opposition forces have no, or very limited, airborne capabilities, or rely on an ally with those capabilities. The additional deck length for CdG to launch and recover Hawkeyes was a necessity for the ship to operate independently in the North Atlantic where she would be faced with incoming missiles launched from over the horizon. The QE & PoW will have the same issue, and need to rely on US Navy airborne radars to warn of threats in time to react.

[@user-ie4tt1xp7j]

@@adventtrooper Well, you still can have helicopter-based AWACS, though.

[@adventtrooper]

@@user-ie4tt1xp7j You can, but my understanding is their capabilities are considerably less than a fixed wing alternative.

[@AltoEquation828]

I live on the Isle of Wight and for however long there was a building size ship blocking the view because it broke down😂

[@asb358]

They don’t need to operate two simultaneously, having two is good for making sure one is always available when the other needs maintenance. The government seems pretty committed to the Prince of Wales since 2015, other reports suggesting she could be mothballed since are just rumours, and writing the ship off for some technical issues this early in its lifetime is wrong. Especially following the quick and successful development of her sister ship. And this is actually a good advertisement for having two carriers, whilst the Prince of Wales had problems the Queen Elizabeth stepped in and covered her. In terms of the UK CSG capability this is one area we can be positive about, even if Uk defence overall is lacking.

[@bubba842]

That's not how it works. Each ship has its own crew. So even if it is sat in dry dock you are still paying the operating costs in terms of man power. It still needs a full compliment of weapons and aircraft.

[@richardaillas162]

Just one carrier is a very bad idea for the reasons given in the video. The one third rule is pretty ancient, it even influenced (in a very minor way) Jutland, given part of our battlefleet was undergoing routine mainenance/modifications. Thus Jellicoe had fewer frontline vessels than he wanted. Not having carriers would almost certainly encourage Argentina to invade again, although our submarines routinely patrol those waters as they are well aware.

[@asb358]

​@@bubba842 In many cases it is how it works, and a carrier will not always have a full compliment of weapons, aircraft on board etc. Crew can be posted elsewhere, as is practiced often in the RN when ships are in maintenance or inactive. You are still paying some operating costs, but they are significantly reduced from a deployed aircraft carrier with a full carrier strike group supporting her. As long as the carriers are well alternated, and maintained, then having one on and one off is a good idea both for money saving and for maintaining a constant CSG capability.

[@arandomdudewithhobbies3318]

There is a very good reason why the PoW has a propeller problem. Its just evident in the name, its predecessor got sunk after the props were struck. QE is doing well because its predecessor did extremely well and tons of decorations./s

[@Jalu3]

To garuntee 1 ship to be able to deploy, a nation needs 3 to 4 of that type of ship. Therefore the Royal Navy really needed to build 3, not 2.

[@npc2153]

*Half a year later* Rule of thirds.

[@carrickrichards2457]

So many problems in the decision process. The SDR suggested they needed a different F35 for which a longer deck was neccessary. SDR did not find the RN only needed one. The design spec is too short for the MUCH more capable F35 version: That made the RAF feel less threatened as it would have made their fighter role obsolete in a single policy decision. Dockyard contract was too complex to permit modifications (Cameron's government tried): Built in Prime minister Brown's constituency so the dockyard got the protections it wanted. Built out of synch wth aircraft availability: Just not joined up. Odd choices and multiple high risks accepted, in a surprisingly dysfunctional process for such a huge project. And the consequences still comming to light even now.

[@1down4up78]

It’s better to have a carrier and not need it, than it is to not have one and need it. I said the same about my wife, the local kebab van and this mornings underwear. All the above proved me right!

[@bernardotorres4659]

Very enlightening to know how all countries that build aircraft carriers have issues with them after they have been built .

[@Endwankery]

He was being extremely charitable. The Soviets were terrible at building aircraft carriers so having your ship compared to three of those is a worrying scenario

[@kevlar7669]

That's not a real Aircraft Carrier.

[@danielduncan6806]

Can't have issues with something that doesn't exist. It is natural for them to have problems after they have been built. Because duh. No carrier, no problems with carrier. Hahahaha!

[@jetpigeon8758]

All new vessels have teething troubles. These are all sorted out now. Every country has issues with all new vessels. you learn as you move along.

[@johnhopkins6658]

How many smaller carriers could have been built for the same cost. Remember HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. Now we are finding that the tank is redundant. Are these huge carriers redundant?

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

Better to have two of them and not need it than to need it and not have it. plus let’s be honest, ofc there’s gonna be mechanical issues w the new carriers, they’re of a new design and much larger than anything the Royal Navy has had before, but considering how good the queen liz has been thus far when it was at sea on barely half capacity airwings, I’d say it’s worth keeping the pow around, especially since it’s lifespan it’s 50+ years at only £3.5 billion a piece. Also w spending hopefully going up for the armed forces as a whole, hopefully it’ll sort out the main issues it’s currently facing as well as hopefully changing the minds of politicians who seem to be blind as a bat without echo location, that the military is important and it’s well-being and operability and responsibility is not up for debate

[@mikelovesbacon]

The success of HMS QE proves it's a good design. She's been operational for years, been all around the globe, including an 8-month deployment leading her CSG through the Asia Pacific region.

[@Kenneth_James]

There are issues and then there are ISSUES and those were the latter. I mean, the electrical room completely flooding for a full 24 hours and the starboard propeller shaft are very big issues. They are absolutely worth keeping and the politicians saying otherwise are trying to weaken your country and should be voted out. Perhaps they were bought off by Russian money that was all over London until recently?

[@bernardotorres4659]

I liked your comparison : blind as a bat without echo location

[@rayjames6096]

PoW has spent less than 3 weeks at sea since being declared fully operational in October of 2021, the rest of the time in maintenence or dry dock.

[@patthonsirilim5739]

the problem with the carrier is not the carrier itself but the lack of escort carrier airwing and carrier crew.

[@luckyguy600]

What? No airplanes. What bloody good is that then? Bring back the swordfish ...

[@andreaschapman9886]

It’s not an unlucky ship,the reason it keeps having mechanical problems is plain and simple Labour who were the ruling party at the time purchased the cheapest components that they could to build her hence the constant problems that she suffers from.

[@coling3957]

the point of TWO carriers is that they rotate duty. Defence is always a target for the Govt who see cutting defence as some sort of cure for all financial issues in UK. ships spend a lot of time in dock being refitted and updated. i live across the road from Devonport Dockyard and HMS Drake, ships are in port and having extensive work done every time they dock , often for weeks even months at a time before going back out to sea.

[@WildBillCox13]

I expect the reason is simple*. Great Britain has a vested interest in its NATO commitment. Providing X number of carriers is likely one of the calculations made against an overall estimate of the the cost of alternatives**. Moreover, it's nice to be able to use the one in maintenance as a familiarization and training ship. In this way the phasing operational ship can be fully manned with an expert crew. *The devil's in the details ** For equivalent levels of force projection/multiplication.

[@SmokePoppa]

Politics always deprioritizes military spending in favor of favored causes or more immediate needs, then there's a military issue that leaves service members in need and politicians scramble to fill the hole they caused in the military. The United States has a ridiculous military budget according to everyone, but when the War on Terror began, the US army needed billions to repair systems that didn't have funding for proper maintenance. For instance, vehicles didn't have working speedometers, transmissions had been on order for months, etc. Key weapon systems that had been planned, like the crusader and commanche, had been killed in order to stockpile cruise missiles for the navy and air force.

[@merc2dogs]

Just a quick question out of pure curiosity. Why do some countries have aircraft carriers with ramps at the bow, and others have nearly perfectly flat decks? Is there an advantage to either design, or is it just a preference thing?

[@gildedbear5355]

Catapults (which are required for jets to take off of flat carriers) are, in many ways, the superior launch system for carriers. However, they take up space, require tons of maintenance, need lots of power and/or steam, and can break or making. On the other hand a ski jump puts more limits on what it can launch but is cheaper and needs none of the power or maintenance of the catapult. The difference is a preference for performance or cost, basically. There are also some flat topped carriers that only launch things like helicopters but they have the special trait of not needing to go forward to take off 😅

[@scottt5521]

The reason that the Royal Navy wanted bigger aircraft carriers is that they needed to be able to launch and recover naval AWACS aircraft. The lack of naval AWACS left the fleet blind to early warning of low flying fighters from Argentina that were able to do a lot of damage.

[@sheepbow909]

Funny how they then made the carriers Ski-Jump (Even though Project Ark Royal exists, I doubt it might ever happen) which means they can't support AWACS anyway

[@paulbrooks4395]

Likely there were cuts on quality on the second ship when it was destined for mothballs. A two phase deployment will have a negative cascade effect, giving the QE the reputation as being a bad place to be posted. Too much pressure in that part of the RN will reduce recruitment, which will increase pressure, etc. It's a downward spiral that can only be altered by an operational change. But without having three ships, there's no way they can meet ongoing operational objectives without incurring burnout. The worst part about this is that Australia is thinking about operating a blue-water navy without a single carrier. Hypohystericalhistory did a video on this and why they desperately need a light carrier for their new unmanned aircraft if they want to be able to oppose a force like China. The PoW could be sold to Australia...except that they have no interest in the very ship they need.

[@GrenvilleP710]

The problems stem. mainly from the modular construction method This was different on the two carriers . Resulted in shaft misalignment on POW..That's a big job. All new girst of type ships have problems POW has had more than it's fair share. But like the Type 45s it will. be sorted. It's true however that the RN has lost its strength in depth that made it an impressive blue water force. That's going to be hard to rebuild.

[@eddihaskell]

Don't believe this. ALL new weapons systems have problems. The USS Ford and the France's Charles De Gaulle had issues before coming into service. The PoW is no different; it will come into service AND it will be appropriately aircrafted over the next decade. The UK NEEDS two carriers, and the cost of maintaining two is NOT half of the cost of maintaining once carrier. -- I am a former Naval Air Analyst.

[@sovkhan4359]

Exactly

[@franzpeterplachy7226]

You need a minimum of 2 carriers. One will spend half its life in port, because the Navy likes to add gadgets all the time. If this was a commercial ship it would be in dock maybe every 10 years!

[@rossmansell5877]

Commerce earms money. Defence spends it....

[@luckyguy600]

This ship doesn't even have a pool or a little casino onboard. I don't want to go on that boat.

[@leub01]

One carrier is of little use when it’s refitting, we badly need two if not three carriers if we are to punch our alleged weight as a world power.

[@demonic477]

with this many issues it's not bad luck it's improper construction by the ship yard they didn't do a proper job on the ship and should be held responsible . the first carrier is almost perfect but this one is just the result of the yard getting slack on there quality control . they more then likely thought it's going in to dry dock so why bother but now it's a ship of the line they need to fix all the stuff they let slide

[@Demopans5990]

Probably because the Queen was still alive during commissioning. There was a pressure not to mess up the ship with her name on it

[@swimfan6292]

Probably not any single entities fault. During this time there's a lot of scamming and goods being sold over representing themselves as Industry BEST, when it's not! Mostly raw materials. Lookup Kobe Steel manufacturing scandall. That could explain a lot and it's not even who's fault you'd think it might be

[@favesongslist]

I do not think it helped at the time they were building it, they were being told it was never going to be used.

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@Demopans5990 it's not named after Queen Elizabeth II though

[@krashd]

@@Demopans5990 Queen Elizabeth died four hundred years ago...

[@Jajoglowiec]

Hello, Mr. Not what you think.

[@desirayelawrence9676]

As a veteran of the British armed forces I can tell you that this information is very false. Our military is probably the strongest it has ever been in centuries. Yes we are sending supplies to the Ukraine but prior to sending that supplies we have already had more supplies being produced for ourselves to balance it out. As for the HMS Prince of Wales that ship has been useless since the day it was built. It's likely it'll never actually see any service and probably will either be sold off to an allying country put on reserve or taken apart and used for any repairs needed on the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

[@southbay1279]

The reason is the UK has strategic interests in the South China Sea and will now take on some of the burden of freedom of navigation exercises from the U.S. Australia also plays a key role in this strategic defense of international shipping. Without western intervention, you would be paying an unprecedented monumental tax to China to ship your oil, grain, tech, and other exports to your respective nations. Imagine having to pay a shipping tax that’s more expensive than the item and actual shipping costs combined. Here’s another way to say it, if you rely on oil shipped through the South China Sea, and China controls that shipping lane, your oil costs will go up 10 fold. If you can’t produce enough oil domestically, what are you going to do?

[@kewoncrayton2309]

Funnily enough, nothing makes me think of cost more than destruction; when a resource is eliminated by the enemy. For instance; a single F-15 is like $80,000,000. Theoretically, you could lose a billion dollars in a single operation if 10 or so get shot down (which isn’t impossible). Insane to think about.

[@vedsingh-bp2ke]

Cost calculation is rarely that simple

[@navyseal1689]

yeah but you dont need 10 F15s for an operation nowadays

[@roderick2105]

Why does Britain need any of this military stuff anyway. Surely, possessing nuclear weapons is enough to deter any potential adversary !!

[@Yosh1az]

HMS Prince of Wales 🤝 kuznezov Spending more time in dry dock than open waters

[@bloody_bones5344]

If there was war or something else this serious UK would easily fix and put her in full working mode. Of course that would cost quite a lot meanwhile Kuznezov cannot be put in functioning state no Mather how much Russia tries. For any Russians out there that wonder why? Well your big shity country does not have technology to repair and maintain a Cold War era aircraft carrier…

[@swimfan6292]

Sounds like Chinese cars that get "made in ______"

[@carwyngriffiths]

Its just became operational, a better comparison would be the Charles De Gaulle

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Considering that all mechanical things wear down with use.. having a spare is always handy.

[@spartancam-rs5ru]

Shes just been repaired now and declared fully operational again, she wont be going away any time soon it seems

[@rafaeltoledo2310]

This story of the British HMS Prince of Wales reminded me of the Brazilian navy, which had so many problems with the São Paulo aircraft carrier (a Clemenceau-class vessel sold by the French navy to Brazil in the 2000s) that it decided to sink it. Three years after commissioning and successful missions, the aircraft carrier São Paulo suffered an accident. There was an explosion in the steam system, leaving 3 dead and many injured. Sent to the dry dock where it spent 5 years in restoration and requalification works. In 2010 she was sent to sea for tests and in 2011 her verification was concluded and approved by the navy and the planning to reintegrate into active service in 2013. Unfortunately in 2012 there was a fire in the vessel's electrical systems, leaving 1 dead and 2 seriously injured. This sent the São Paulo back into drydock for repairs again. In 2015, with the aircraft carrier still under repair, the government announced an ambitious modernization plan to extend the useful life of the ship to 2039 and prepare it to operate the new Sea Gripens. The value of the works was estimated at 1 billion reais ( approximately 190 million US dollars) and the start of works was postponed. In 2017, the navy decided to deactivate the São Paulo aircraft carrier and in 2021 sold it as scrap at an auction to a Turkish company (Sök Denizcilik Tic Sti). However, the Turks refused to receive the ship in their territorial waters, alleging the excessive amount of asbestos inside the aircraft carrier and the ship did not dock again at any base or port in Brazil due to the allegation of the amount of asbestos... Now, in the beginning of In 2023, the Brazilian navy decided to sink the São Paulo in territorial waters at a depth greater than 4,000 meters. Apparently every country in the world has difficulties with aircraft carriers.

[@MegaSunspark]

Wow, that's crazy. What year did the French originally build this carrier for it to have so much asbestos, do you know?

[@rafaeltoledo2310]

​@@MegaSunsparkConstruction of the Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier named Foch began in 1957 and was commissioned into the French Navy in 1963.

[@panderson9561]

@@rafaeltoledo2310 The Clemenceau was pretty much worn out by the time Brazil got it. Why spend all that $$$ on a ship that old is the real question.

[@richardsmith579]

HMS Victory was decommissioned almost as soon as she was launched. Then, years later, refitted. Then ….

[@rossmansell5877]

....and the oldest naval vessel in the world STILL in commission. It was 40 yrs old at the Trafalgar victory.

[@PompeyMatt17]

Victory was never decomissioned

[@CiaranMaxwell]

I find it odd that the UK would have the same problems as other countries with less than a handful of carriers. They aren't exactly new to this type of ship. They had enough during WWII to lend us one for the Pacific war until we got the _Essex_ class up and running. Ever heard of the fleet carrier USS Robin? Yeah, she may have been surrounded by American ships and taking orders from the American navy, but her real name was _HMS Victorious._ She was a British ship with British sailors, and one tanky woman to boot. Sad that the Royal Navy has forgotten so much.

[@Catalyn25]

You dont need planes for both carriers, since 1 is active and 1 in port, why would you need the airwings in port?

[@MaverickBlue42]

They'll be thankful within the next year or two... And it's only "unlucky" because of shortcuts taken, likely due to the budget cuts. If it was a design problem then the sister ship would have had all the same issues.

[@Kenneth_James]

War is on the horizon. They will be very happy they were built.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

Exactly

[@tygonmaster]

The UK: We only need one carrier to meet our needs of defense. The US: Defense?

[@timpeterson2738]

Ya real smart for a powerful island nation to only have 1 carrier, NOT. They need 4 or 5.

[@thwales2520]

@@timpeterson2738 We dont have a need for more than 2 aircraft carriers. We are relying more on our submarines for mainland defence and our destroyers, if we wanted to deploy from far away from the mainland we would most likely just base from commonwealth countries like Australia for example if a war in Asia was to happen, we have no big need for more than 2

[@louissanderson719]

@@timpeterson2738 we don’t need 4 carriers

[@valkyrie941]

@@timpeterson2738 you act like we have a choice

[@PrabhasD1122]

you should have seen the home built INS Vikrant 1961 (India) I just did some researching.

[@cliveherbert9476]

That's an unfair report, lots of major warships have initial problems, just look at US ships. HMS Prince of Wales has only just started it's 50 year life. It's last Captain hasn't been born yet.

[@stvdagger8074]

"red headed bastard son who nobody wants" They misnamed the ship, it should be the Duke of Sussex

[@jtgd]

It’s telling that the RF wants Andrew, but not Harry

[@Dunkopf]

They'd have to get the ship far enough into the sea to complete the ritual LOL

[@silverhost9782]

@@jtgd it doesn't want Andrew either.

[@rosiehawtrey]

Nah, they're reserving that for the lead ship of the new class of escort missile cruisers, rumoured to be the "Nonce" class. Other units include the HMS Heath, Saville and Epstein amongst others... And I'm betting the old baggage knew exactly what was going on with her baby-nonce and the Kiddiefiddlers Parliament.. So she's an accessory after the f*ucked (sorry). Evil old bat that she was. Perfectly apt.

[@MausMasher54]

As for the Dry docking and such, I am suggesting that they did the same the like the USAF did with the 485L Program(I was there at it's demise, it was temporarily replaced by an off-the-shelf IBM Sys34 Serial #2) in the '70s, ie...get it all working and then decide to add something new and screws previous parts of the system and continues with such until it's a Total Clusterfuck...IMHO....Uh, it would be easy to fully load out both carriers, merge a few from NATO members on Squadron Rotations....this would allow inter-service training and more....

[@SeverityOne]

Another issue is that the nature of naval warfare is changing. Battleships were impressive, but never made quite the impact that was expected of them. And they stood no chance against aircraft carriers (think Yamato). Aircraft carriers have been the most formidable naval vessels since WW2, but the Chinese for example have built a whole bunch of land-based missiles specifically to target any hostile vessel - say, an American aircraft carrier. But the amount of money that the UK spends on its military is not nearly enough. That's the long and short of it. Just raise taxes, especially for those who can best afford them.

[@gooddoggy3257]

For realistic military planning, if you need one carrier, you should have at least 2 and for the unexpected, 3.

[@matchesburn]

UK government: "You don't need two aircraft carriers! You can make do with one!" ...Okay, UK government/Parliament. Riddle me this: The HMS Queen Elizabeth is your only carrier and it's in drydock for maintenance. The Argentinians decide to go for Falklands War 2.0: Electric Boogaloo and invade the Falklands. You now have no way to actually get aircraft at sea and operate. Gee, suddenly having more than just one carrier *_FOR A MAJOR NATO COUNTRY AND FORMERLY A WORLD SUPER POWER_* kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

[@36thulsterdiv72]

How are they getting the Falklands? There's a massive airbase now at Mount Pleasant with a detachment of Typhoon jets on standby. Thousands of personnel guard the Falklands today compared to 1982. You also have to factor in that Argentina has no navy or airforce to write home about.. it's flagship capsized in port ffs.

[@matchesburn]

@@36thulsterdiv72 Your reading comprehension is terrible.

[@mikelovesbacon]

Tell me which other major NATO countries except the US and UK have more than 1 supercarrier, or indeed any supercarriers. I suggest you direct your complaint at the nations who do far less than us, yet have more money, like Germany.

[@matchesburn]

@@mikelovesbacon "Tell me which other major NATO countries except the US and UK have more than 1 supercarrier" Broheim. Sit down. The UK does not have any supercarriers. Ski jump ramp carriers are not supercarriers. That's only for CATOBAR. Yes. I know it was called that by the media. No, the Queen Elizabeth-class are not supercarriers. You can't operate fixed-wing AWACs off it. You can't operate tankers off of it (even buddy store tankers are a no-go due to weight and clearance issues). And, to boot, it's not even nuclear. Not a supercarrier. You do not get that club access. And just to thoroughly rain on your parade, the Charles de Gaulle might be shorter and might be less tonnage than the QE... But it's nuclear. And it's CATOBAR, like a *_real_* carrier. I would consider that a supercarrier before I consider any ski jump nonsense a supercarrier. And I'm *_very_* accompanied in that camp, and I'm very comfortable plopping myself down on that hill.

[@sebxiou-lifestyle4465]

I agree that the UK struggles to afford this aircraft carrier; His Majesty's Government (and His Majesty's citizens) are struggling to afford anything / everything at present (mind you, that is usually how things go). But a second aircraft carrier is pretty essential if one has a first; a reserve is vital. It might be true that the reserve does not have to be a carbon-copy - but some secondary carrier-capability is necessary. A big problem with HMS POW is (as you mentioned) its break-downs. They need fixing quickly. But let's put things t'other way-round. When HMS POW was due to visit the USA, it broke-down. Had we not had a second carrier (HMS QE) then that obligation could not have been fulfilled. Because of too little warning not everything on that trip was undertaken but, at least, the RN showed-up. Of course, HMS QE had been on lengthy duty and both ship and crew needed a break but they did visit the USA. Like an actor in a major play, an understudy is needed - I hope this does not happen but, next time, it might be HMS QE has an obligation, breaks-down, so HMS POW is sent instead. Without two carriers, essential maintence, etc means not infrequent gaps in carrier-coverage, etc. So we do need to fund both aircraft carriers properly, alas. Cheers.

[@micahbonewell5994]

It is much better for the reserve ship to be a carbon copy, simply due to simplicity. If one were to have two entirely different designs for the aircraft carriers you would double the complexity of construction and maintenance. Already being a very low volume design, the British aircraft carriers were more expensive than they could have been if built in larger numbers.

[@tombblades]

We should have built another 3 light carriers like the Invincible class. We do not have a use for supercarriers, for we have not the planes for them. Having to buy 60 F-35B's for 1 carrier is a terrible idea when you can buy the same amount for 3 carriers to use. In a time of war, you could lose 1 carrier and still have one carrier back at home, whereas with the Elizabeth's, any damage to one of them would be catastrophic to us. Buying 3 light carriers would be even more economical than 2 supercarriers. The Invincible class were a Frankenstein design that proved to be a vital asset within 3 years of commissioning. Light carriers work better for a country like the UK.

UK F-35's also qualify as portable submarines, so you could only have 1 carrier going and extra F-35's trailing it underwater. Tests have been going on in the Méditerranée

[@ghostwriter2031]

The US have crashed more F35’s - the USMC lost two last year. Have France surrendered yet ? 😂

[@HouseofWarfare-ci7ij]

I like this response - I like it very much XD@@ghostwriter2031

[@livethefuture2492]

We seem to be placing a lot of faith on a select few very shiny new high tech systems while disregarding other more important aspects of defense expenditure like training, mainaitnece, and most importantly having redundancy and strategic depth. As Ukraine has shown, relying too much on any one system is a fatal mistake. You need to have redundancy and strategic depth in any conflict for when things inevitably go wrong.

[@metchoumetch3176]

@@ghostwriter2031 France has nuclear powered AC, i mean CATOBAR, with flying omni-roles Rafales, bi-engines with longer range, which have never crashed due to a plane problem. Brits will need 4 AC to have the same capabilities so it's normal if they use more their planes and crash more often.

[@russellsmith6476]

​@metchoumetch3176 unfortunately the French have got no balls and thats something you cant build

[@trevortrevortsr2]

Never heard it called the unlucky Ship - who calls it this and where are they based?

[@scottanno8861]

A certain Slavic speaking nation whose leader would appreciate such propaganda...

[@trevortrevortsr2]

@@scottanno8861 Its pathetic of this blog not to source it claims

[@robertnemeth6248]

You need two carriers to operate a credible carrier strike capability. So PoW is very much wanted. PoW IS a powerful carrier and outside the USN probably the most powerful super carrier. There are always a few problems with a new class but trey will be worked out. The class is cutting edge a 5 generation carrier with 5 generation fighters.

[@mikelovesbacon]

Yep and we only need to look to HMS Queen Elizabeth to demonstrate this is an excellent design. She's been active for years including a 8 month deployment around the world, visiting China's backyard to say hello.

[@Kenneth_James]

Supercarrier is generally used to describe a carrier with a displacement over 65,000 long tons. The 2 British carriers are certainly right there with their US counterparts as far as technology as much is shared between them. They just aren't nearly as large at 64,000 long tons.😉

[@mikelovesbacon]

@@Kenneth_James Royal Navy quote displacement without a load whereas US Navy quote displacement as full load. HMS Queen Elizabeth would be about 74,000 long tonnes fully loaded, which is a lot closer to the 100,000 long tonnes of a fully loaded GRF. Her deck size is about 90% of a GRF (217,800 sqft vs 196,020 sqft). The ship is huge.

[@MotoroidARFC]

​@@Kenneth_James also, the amount of aircraft carried. From Forrestal to John F Kennedy (obviously not counting Enterprise), these conventional powered carriers had big air wings which also justified the supercarrier label. The air wings of these carriers during their time and even the reduced size of current deployed USN air wings are still larger than any other air wing on any other aircraft carrier at this time. The PRC's PLAN Type 003 has the space for a large air wing but it is still fitting out so the size of the air wing it can carry is unknown. It potentially could be a supercarrier if its air wing is the same size as a USN air wing. An aircraft carrier that can have up to 40 aircraft though is not a supercarrier.