HMS Queen Elizabeth and RFA Fort Victoria - live ammunition replenishment 

I love work , I can watch it all day.

On a frigate or destroyer nearly all the ship's company have a role. What you do not notice with this RAS is a lot of people are required if something goes wrong. During the RAS there are people there to put an axe through the ropes and cables and hands available to stop the lines getting caught up in the propellor etc. On a frigate of destroyer there is a lot more manual input on the warship side as they do not have the convenience of that hanger space and hydraulic lift equipment etc.

That's what they're there for! 😂

You can tell they’re trainees by how skinny they are. 😂

@@petrolhead1960 Very true. A few 'Fish Fridays' and Sunday Roasts will sort them out.

must have been a banyan day?

Watching and learning :)

One supervisor, one apprentice, one on tea break and one doing the actual work!

It's health and safety. People need to watch the people doing the work, for example stray ropes as they are concentrating on the replenishment

via the upper scupper flip flop route

A camera

@Rob Wilton "The floor moves". True British understatement. 😁

Even more of a warm fuzzy feeling to have 2 carriers :-)

If the ship's we're stationary then they would be bouncing around in the swell, much easier to do it on the move.

I'd imagine because you wouldn't get that opportunity during war

And I am sure we used to carry out a zig zag pattern in 1974/5 during RASs in Task Group 317.2 nine month deployment to the Far East.

Somewhere in the Pacific or Philippine Sea. Almost definitely South of Japan and North of Guam because that’s where individual ships were recently alongside.

@@TT-hd3zi thanks for the reply ...I knew they'd left Japan..just wasn't sure of the heading after the fact 🇬🇧

Off of Okinawa. 😊

Replenishment at sea.

I think (if I’m looking at the same thing), that it’s on the back of a crane cab?

@@Paul_707 if you look at 3:22 its top left just above and to the right of the life rafts

Don't see a problem if that thing is rated for maritime conditions.

Isn't it for the crane cab, not so easy to connect that to the ship wide AC.

@@adsheff yes, that’s what I meant. It’s on the crane which is turned inboard.

More T45's not gonna happen same with the arleigh Burke too much money plus must of the systems on the ABs the RN doesn't use so its a new systems to have to train/maintain on only a handful of ships plus the ABs have a 33% increase in crew compared to the T45's which is not what the RN wants when it struggles to crew what its already got. The government has announced the T83 Class destroyer which will hopefully bring an increase in total unit numbers but that's a 50/50 as to is that will be the case. The MOD doesn't want nuclear carriers the pros are outweighed by the increased cost, manning, maintenance, and upkeep, the carrier still needs to refuel it's aviation fuel tanks once a week anyway so it will just refuel then.

​@@Autofleet4429 Why do people always try to argue on a comment praising a nation. The AB class is cheaper then the type 45 do to block buys. " Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula has been awarded a $936 million contract for the construction of an additional Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Flight III destroyer for the U.S. Navy. In 2018, Ingalls was awarded a $5.1 billion fixed-price incentive, multiyear contract for construction of six Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers for the U.S. Navy." The UK has already studied buying AB class destroyers if the US were to allow them the rights, thats the biggest issue. "The cost of the Destroyers is also indicative of another structural problem, the fact that the defence budget is also used as part of an industrial strategy. The destroyers like most of the UK’s equipment, are produced domestically and expensively in order to support the UK arms industry. Had the UK bought the equivalent American destroyers, the Arleigh Burke class, it could have done so at half the price getting twice the capability, 12, at the same cost." Im glad you speak for the MOD. Nuclear carriers are better in every single way other then initial cost. Conventional can cost more based on how many missions they go on as they need constant fuel, more maintenance, support ships need to be built and fueled, etc. "the carrier still needs to refuel it's aviation fuel tanks once a week " The Nimitz class carries 90 days of supplies, it carries fuel for the entire fleet eliminating support ships needing to travel with the CSG as it is the support ship. "The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."

I detect a patronising tone. The RN was never away.

@@rogerloughney1972 What? The UK fleet is small and has been building up. The UK fleet literally has only 6 destroyers, 13 frigates, 11 submarines, etc with around 70 total ships. Its small. You have been building it back up which is good. Crazy how people can get upset over a positive comment. You guys act like I'm saying the UK sucks or something.

@@ThatCarGuy Not true on cost or maintenance of nuclear vs conventional aircraft carriers. From a US GAO report: www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-98-1.pdf "conventionally powered carriers spend less time in extended maintenance, and as a result, they can provide more forward presence coverage. By the same token, nuclear carriers can store larger quantities of aviation fuel and munitions and, as a result, are less dependent upon at-sea replenishment." and "Investment, operating and support, and inactivation and disposal costs are greater for nuclear-powered carriers than conventionally powered carriers. GAO’s analysis, based on an analysis of historical and projected costs, shows that life-cycle costs for conventionally powered and nuclear-powered carriers (for a notional 50-year service life) are estimated at $14.1 billion and $22.2 billion (in fiscal year 1997 dollars), respectively." Nuclear carriers are great for the US, but for a country with the resources/infrastructure of the UK conventional carriers are good enough, affordable and provide good availability.

you can't delete them, this is you tube

@@soilentgreen7 thank you for the information but please bear with me as I'm an almost a technophobe who still wishes there wasn't any mobile phones and the tablet I'm using was a crimbo present from 2 years ago

YJ-18 but most people are still sleeping

why?

electrics can fail, there's always an arm to pump some thing ;)

@@keithskelhorne3993 Hahaha, i guess they have to keep 1500 people busy somehow.

@@allenseeallendo5844 cor, aint you the master of repartee? ;) now alot of people know that your wrist is pumping faster than your brain :) xx

Wow what an oversight by the MOD, the ship is now doomed, it will now sink tomorrow!! I love it when the armchair expert trolls find fault with everything, must be so satisfying to be an expert on everything and let the world know all about it.

@@ianwatson129 It’s an observation not an analysis on a ships ability to operate. Calm down.

Gloves are banned from RAS'S safety reasons. One mistake with SWR and it will not only remove the finger of your glove it'll take the skin and flesh off down to the bones. I was a seaman specialist in the Royal Navy till 2007 and this was my bread and butter.

I know people like to exaggerate and have a laugh about the military budget, but even if they were allowed during ras’, the Royal Navy can afford gloves fella

@@lachlanchester8142 that's the rules mate. No gloves and certainly no rings. Have you seen any de gloved fingers on a RAS? It's got nothing to do with budgeting or financial cuts, before a RAS the chief buffer or petty officer, killick make sure that all rings are removed. How many RAS'S have you done?

@@richardstoker4963 umm did you not read my reply? When I said ‘if they were allowed during ras’ that meant that I was agreeing they’re not allowed during a ras

@@lachlanchester8142 sorry. I didn't have my reading glasses on mate.