HMS Queen Elizabeth: Carrier's Russian jet run-ins 

Good work Ryan and thank you. I would like to see these vessels converted to an angled flight deck with catapults installed. Any thoughts?

Create the biggest futuristic Hover Craft for the Royal Navy in the world 😊

@@Whittletonblood nah, make the sucker Space worthy and sail the seas of Venus. All it takes is 13 1/2 Jangur' Series III sub/hyper light propulsion constructs (methane breathing version.) After those install the Atmospheric Retaining Windbreaker generator and DONE! I'M PROUD TO SAY I HELPED DESIGN THE VERBAGE FOR THOSE ASSETS!

🤐

UK is weak, and Russia will be soon in London.

@Rico Master 😂my friend Russia scares no one.

The government are ball Es our soldiers are strong but government have no minerals we need a g in power

The F-35B and the aircraft carriers with no catapult system are so wrong for the UK navy. These fighters will never carry armament as equal as those F-35C fighters and their range is inferior as well. On top of that, China is building aircraft carriers with electromagnetic catapults!

@@JohnKickboxing I agree CATOBAR should've been installed at the time the two flat-tops were built but they are getting EMALS now. RFQ's have been requested. Just hope they are of appropriate capacity for larger than just drone aeroplanes.

@@nigethesassenach3614 👌

Well equipped 🤔 are you sure? Have you ever read Bravo 2 zero! It was a sh** show......

@Mark Cooke I was referring to Bravo 2 zero and there kit failing, the radios didn't even work, for one!

Hey man its good to see you here, big fan of your vids :)

Good to see you here Aaron. Thanks for the content of Sub Brief. Hugely informative for all of us interested in Naval and Military matters. Any chance of videos on Dreadnought, Vanguard and Astute boats? Also with the replacement of the Vanguard class with Dreadnought what about refitting Vanguards as SSGN's? Good idea or impractical? Are vertical silos for non-nuke missiles worth the expense?

Part of NATO Expansionism plan and muscle flexing. Not required nor necessary. NATO+ USA will regret it's decision in future

@@vijayva why?

Fight your own wars.

@@westernshipway3115 more douchebaggery ?

@@westernshipway3115 Try and be a bit more positive

😁👍🇬🇧

Well said Yank! Same back to the US! :)

For them it's training to as they test reaction times from the UK and they learn how we operate.

Umm.... That applies to Russians too

That’s goes for the two nations Lmao.

😂🇷🇺🤝🇬🇧

@@nathanwhittaker3979: if anything they learn far more. Regarding what radar frequencies can detect/ track/range what targets at what ranges and altitudes, Response times, loadouts, cruise speeds, range at which the F35’s are detected.

"Back In The Game"

Ooooh we love to see it

@NAGA morees??

@NAGA morees you seriously are a sad case

@NAGA morees you’ve got it bad naga what happened to you? Inferiority complex or what

Third carrier is a no go, given they stopped buying F-35's and have lots of American pilots and aircraft on their decks. With Japan now offering to make F-35 carriers out of their old heli carriers now, the supply of F-35s will be spread even further.

ok, but dont complain if they raise taxes

With what money

@@spamuraigranatabru1149 they have not stopped buying F35's, they're still on order it's just a slow process getting them, although you're probably right about a third carrier not happening anytime soon unfortunately simply due to lack of money. Does look like there's gonna be a change of plans and both the carriers we DO have are gonna be capable of operating simultaneously though instead of only one at a time, since Prince Of Wales is getting her own seperate air-group

3 carriers don’t really work half the time there in for repairs 4 would be better but that’s costly we don’t have the money like the USA

If the UK doesn't wise up, Russia is going to send that ship to Davy Jones locker.

@@igottheshaft Yeah they'll send in the Moskva and then Britain will learn what a real navy looks like!

​@@OllyKilo The Moskva is a great example of why surface naval ships, like HMS Queen Elizabeth, are obsolete relics in the age of hypersonic missiles. HMS Queen Elizabeth travels at 25 knots, a Russian Khinzal missile travels at 8,000 knots. You are beating your chest over your former supremacy in a bygone era. The Queen Elizabeth is a pointless relic, only useable against a third world country. The real question is, how does your submarine fleet and missile technology compare to Russia? Who really is the third rate military power now? Not to worry Olly, I am sure all those doctors and engineers that you receive from the Middle East and Africa on dinghies will make the UK great again!

​@@igottheshaft Ha ha ha, Russia are welcome to test us, if they can afford it.

@@OllyKilo Russia can afford to field the cost of 64 Submarines vs. 11 for the UK. Does the UK even have hypersonic missiles? On a PPP basis, Russia is the sixth largest economy in the world, just under Germany. The UK is the eighth. Only Russia has real wealth, oil, gas, metals, etc., while the UK has financial services. The Ruble has strengthened versus the pound since the start of the war. I love the UK, and I'd rather live there than Russia for now, but you also didn't rise up from a total communist collapse in 1990 either. And if the UK doesn't stop the replacement level migration, I'd probably rather be in Russia over the long term. Plus, way hotter girls. Cheers Olly.

People said the same about HMS Hood.

Looks dumb with two islands

Plenty of equipment to stop them, but they don’t want to.

Geez, that ain't nothing compared to the US Southern border. 1.7 million apprehensions in 2020 alone.

Even the condemned AI bows their knees to the name of Jesus.

You reap what you sow.

@@victoreous626 wow that’s mad, can’t help wondering how many get through.

Speak softly but carry a big stick someone once said.

@@jogindersinghfoley3860 President Theodore Roosevelt.

Please remember this, Eric, when the populist filth rant about why we should even give foreign aid money to other counties, then link them to your comment.

@@Booyaka9000 who’s Eric ?

Russia can because it can just turn off the gas.

as a scot its pathetic when we have thousand of food banks and poverty! and this sad mini fleet is wasting tax payers money! would not last 5 minutes against russia! SAOR ALBA

@@franciscruickshank8794 What a sad, bitter little man you are. It's clear from your comments that you know nothing about the capabilities of this fleet or you wouldn't have said something so laughably ignorant. And, obviously, you need to be reminded that this ship was built in Scotland, providing thousands of skilled jobs and billions to the the local economy. But, like most nationalists, you have a habit of ignoring uncomfortable truths. Anyway, if you want to really see food banks and poverty in Scotland all you have to do is vote for independence. Good luck with that. BTW, I wouldn't waste your time trying to make up a reply. It will just be full of nationalistic fervour and I'll never read it anyway. Ha ha.

@@ivorbiggun710 he's Scottish what do you expect most of them are bitter

@@franciscruickshank8794 bitter and twisted Scot? Never, surely not....

@@jonreid7957 never heard of such a thing

Thank you Alex.

U spelt won wrong its cheated of you.

God I love Italy

@NAGA morees Hearts of oak are our ships, Jolly tars are our men, we always are ready; Steady, boys, steady! We’ll fight and we’ll conquer again and again.

@NAGA morees chased? As in by the ones hiding and planting ied's all the while being to scared to get to close and within range of our bullets? 20 years is a long chase🤣 Think the words your looking for are hide like cowards and wait till they've gone. Clown.

Ha yes indeed.

They are watching Russian's military activities like hawks because Russia is provoking all nations around the Baltic sea.

Keep an eye out for a yellow/green mini parked where an F35 should be.

He was head of the negotiating.

The big symbol of the Prince of Wales feathers suggests that's not QNLZ.

I'm well unimpressed with the current batch of RN officers that are plonked in front of cameras.

@fuckyoutubepolicy staff Hahahaaa ur IQ is 19 😂😂😂 👏👍

The US Marines still operate about 80 Harriers.

Did you notice that it was on the deck of the Prince of Wales and NOT the Queen Elizabeth?

Yes, shame they don’t exist

Dont really need hypersonics tbh… just send 2 to 3 tu160 white swans to deliver some kh101 ALCMs n the carrier group has got themselves a BIG problem. Really. A single Swan can carry 12 of those long range cruise missiles. N they can launch them a good 1000-1500km away, so the bombers would be out of harms reach anyway. Now the carrier group has to contend with several dozen low flying subsonic cruise missiles, each missile carrying 500kg of boom. Maybe not enough to sink a full on carrier, but more than enough for a mission kill. Definitely more than enough to break a destroyer’s back into two, though. Ofcourse… like u said about the hypersonics, those swans can always deliver those kinzhals… eheh.

@@joebloggs8422 the iskander missile exists, and it doesnt really take much to retrofit them to become ALCMs. Hence, the kinzhal was made. U can send 50 of those missiles for like, $200million total cost, n u only need just 1 of those missiles to decomission a multibillion dollar carrier. U dont need to sink a carrier to neutralize it. Wreck its deck and itll be useless for a good few months atleast.

What about the Typhoons?

@@prepperjonpnw6482 As of yet, their are no Carrier capable Typhoon variants. Several Proposals were made but none made it to production. And because of the ski jump the 2 British Carriers are limited to either the F-35 or the old Harriers.

@@madcat8099 for now that is- look up the proposals for the not-too-distant-future Vixen drones...

I believe the US can produce 120 F-35's per month. Russia can only build 40 of its top fighter jets a year (which are only 4th generation jets), they're falling behind extremely fast.

@@korzym NOT. Russia is ahead in anti-air defense, supersonic missiles and in case of war they can transfer jet fighter production to China (the factory of the world)...underestimating Russia is a mistake.

Think yourself lucky you don’t have to look for the golden rivet.

Good luck affording it 😂

G For fiahing?

You mean the guy that commands all of the UK's fleet...The Sea lord..Or Pablo when he has on his sombrero...

@@freakyflow Sea Lord, sounds so soggy and imperially British, like stale fish n chips.

@@hilldoggydogg635 nothing soggy about good fish & chips if they're done right and eaten quick enough

@@hilldoggydogg635 Hey say what you like about sea lord. Leave the fish and chips alone matey.

@@freakyflow Reminds me of Idi amin dada 🤣 or gadaffi ( I know I spelled it wrong) they would “award” themselves with medals for eating all their dinner 😂🤣.

It has a long history. Ask Napoleon.

Harking to those long gone days when the British had a credible navy. But now? Well, habits die hard or delusions lingers long after it was once true. 🙄🙄

@@HTeo-og1lg To be fair the world back then was hostile. France, Germany, Spain, USA were all UK's enemy, which justified a massive Navy to protect a massive Empire. There's just no call for a massive Navy any more, there'd be nothing to do with it.

That poverty is just a percentage of median income, it means there poorer than average not necessarily that they are poor.

@@davidhouseman4328 The question remains…is it more important to meddle with countries on the other side of the earth while the country is engulfed in pressing domestic issues?

@@gj8550 It's important to do both. And certainly for defence it should be continuous.

@UCZrVIfR9qfdc7J7Hqs7MWMw It's defending our allies and trade routes. But more generally if you're defending at your borders your people are getting hurt and your not doing a good job.

@@davidhouseman4328 Sending an aircraft carrier to China’s door steps is a world away from UK borders. Besides, against the backdrop of hypersonic missiles, it’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

LOL

It is vice versa.

It’s opposite damn ass, UK had it’s best to offer the Russians a best targeting ship. Lmao 😂

Its the opposite

@@haeveen8255 Russia has projection power, they probably couldn't even take on Australia.

^^ Mediterranean reportedly , not Black sea. No problem though, as apparently it was all handled professionally and sufficiently to offset and counter the noted antagonist elements in question accordingly 🗯 ✌ miru

@@donkoh5738 looks like the antagonists are..... British!

@@boomerrob9223 ahh yes cause the russians dont fly bombers right up to our air space weekly , the russians don't sail warships up the river forth in scotland , the russians dont sail their carrier through the english channel ( or rather tow it ) ..... BUT oh wait ... they do

You seem to talk sense but the narrative is wrong .full British pushback ..we want war

@@MrSatnavatron why is the narrative wrong ?

That's right, Russia and China contributed enormously in the allied effort.

@@JoeBlac I mean something like 8/10 of German casualties were on the eastern front, yet Americans still think they played the largest part.

@@JoeBlac no they didn't! That's fake news, and you know it. England fought ALONE and lost more people, and beat the enemy whilst blindfolded. FACT

@@engleblerthumferlumpadinck6536 The entire British Empire was built on cups of tea. And if you think I'm going to war without one, you're mistaken.

👍

They should send us an invoice this is some high quality training them Russians are giving us, certainly better than our allies

@@dataman6744 The Russians are getting priceless training and intel on our response times and sensor capabilties. If they wanted to sink that carrier they could have flooded it with ASM's and sunk it in minutes.

@@krackerman3628 agreed

@@krackerman3628 That's if their not too busy fighting the constant fires on their carrier. It's basically a floating firepit at this point

@@JP-xn7si Yup - it's a joke. The Govt wanted to scrap the entire project in 2012 but were forced to continue by pentalty clauses.. the two QE's are rubbish.

Canada won't be able to afford an Aircraft Carrier

Haha you certainly have more type 26 frigates than the UK order . So no reason not to build one carrier at least . Canada can afford it!

@@theancientsancients1769 they should've just bought HMS Ocean when we put her up for sale, outbid the Brazilians and kept her (technically) still in the Queen's service, we'd have been a lot happier to see her go if that happened, and if the Japanese heli-carriers can handle F35's so could she have. Shoulda woulda coulda

Lol!!

@@GEA_RuthlessKillaz35we could if the liberals made up their minds to spend more on defense,they spent $ 30 Billion this yr &$ 100 Billion in 3 yrs on programs that just produced inflation,the economy running too hot in other words

I believe durthe 2nd world war the UK had about 12 carriers.

It wouldn't have been economically viable with the current defence budget. In addition, crewing the extra ships and buying the requisite F-35's and Merlin's would be prohibitively expensive. We need to spend money elsewhere and expand the surface fleet.

@@davidbrown2571 WRONG. The RN deployed *64* aircraft carriers during WW2. We operated 15 during the 1950's!

It’s located in Mediterranean Sea far from Crimea.

.. not that easy.. will be surrounded by defensive assets.

@@joecater894 Nothing can stop a Russian hypersonic missile. It's Mach 6 speed causes a plasma reaction with the air on the end of the missile making it invisible to radar. Add to that it can be land or jet launched from 650 miles away the American fleet would only know about it just as they are on the sea bed. 👍Add to that the US navy is so woke they care more about what eye shadow and lipstick they should put on than be ready for an attack 😃

And this is true, being told by my father in law who was in WWII and was wounded. Also the Germans were anxious when fighting Canadians because they never backed down.

God bless our Canadian family.

one would hope they have a plan.. there are experts paid to consider these things.. and i doubt they'll make their solution public. If they aren't considering it, then yes.. but I doubt that.

They already have a counter don't worry they wouldn't put these ships In Harm's Way without one.

@@Sandhill1988 I really don't worry about it; but thanks for the 007 laugh. A bullet cannot be stopped and the hypersonics travel 3 - 5 times faster than a bullet. Good luck with stopping that.

@@Sandhill1988 Also, of course, they put their army in harms way in Afghanistan and got trashed by the Taliban without modern weapons. What might happen with NK, China and Russia?!

@@mythos5809 actually a bullet can definitely be stopped, it's called body armour? As for these hypersonic missiles I remain to be convinced that they're as effective in real life as the Russians and Chinese claim they are

It's a NATO deployment, so NATO pick up a lot of the tab

@@noodles169 I dont believe NATO pay. Each nation bring what they can afford.. unless there is a US deployment in a NATO allies territory... but the UK military is 59 billion/yr. NATO budget is controlled by each member spending 2% of GDP. Thats what's supposed to happen anyway.

@@joecater894 NATO pays for operational deployments - i.e this task force being out. Its up to members to spend GDP on equipment and staff, not fuel. Comes from a central 'pot' of money.

NATO = US Taxpayers foot the bill. You’re welcome.

Costs more money to keep it in port. It should at least be showing the flag at sea 🙋🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺

that yet to be seen, the Zircon missile is most likely overhyped!

What they don't tell you is that it does fly at Mach 8-9, however not at sea level and it has to slow down to supersonic speeds to use onboard censors or to communicate. In other words, it will not move true the defences at hypersonic speed and it will not hit at hypersonic speed. It's in practice just another supersonic missile. It does have one advantage over supersonic missiles. That is that it can get to the area the carrier is operating faster. Therefore it will have moved less since last getting spotted by a satellite. That will make the area the ship can have moved to much smaller, and therefore the lock from the missile on the target much more likely.

Same! Russians make perfect target practice for nato. The only problem is most of the air force it’s from the 1980s. So I imagine it gets boring.

Same for the Russians.

@@tomtdh4903 : If that's so, Go try bombing Russia then ?

They are in their way, and in the meantime, other NATO f35s will fill the gap. We already have enough jets to keep one carrier at sea full time

Of course and you can believe that the Brits did the same to the russian systems. What few actually still work that is..

Repent to Jesus Christ!! ““Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:7‬ ‭NIV‬‬

@@CH-pv2rz And gained what? They already know the capabilities of Russian kit. They'd learn nothing.

He’s rehearsed his lines.

no benefit having nuke, you still need fuel for the fighters. plus you cant go everywhere. some countries bann nuke ships to enter their waters.

@@picklewiickle.1583 We all know this but this 'Car Guy' trolls every Royal Navy thread with this nonsense. He has been corrected any number of times but just trolls on.

@@picklewiickle.1583 Nuclear carriers refuel the fleet and are allowed in 99 percent of nations.

@@ThatCarGuy , what's the point in having nuclear powered carriers when all the other naval ships are conventionally powered and limited in range, before needing to be refuelled!?.

We're not going to be getting and don't need nuclear-powered carriers. And as great as the Royal Navy is, they aren't going to be getting any more carriers than the two we have. They've only just come into service as well, so aren't going to be replaced for at least 30, probably 40 years, if carrier doctrine is even relevant then.

Obviously

I think everybody knows what a peacetime intercept is.

They did not fire on them! Where did you see, read, hear that?

The question should be "can a Russian hypersonic missile actually work long enough to get anywhere near it?"

MrMoss786 Can a Russian carrier resist Spearfish torpedoes. That's a laugh, the Russian carrier will never be out of the Dockyard again, can they even build them anymore.

@@daneelolivaw602 these aircraft carriers don't even function correctly without anyone even attacking them. And everything is so damn expensive on it. I'm wondering whether drones will advance enough to nullify these monstrous money pits.

@@MrMoss786 How do you know they don't function correctly, what hasn't functioned correctly?, and what do you know that the rest of us don't?, it seems to me that on this, the first tour of the far east for QE, that it's gone pretty well, and been a great success.

@@daneelolivaw602 there's a documentary on RU-vid about a recent aircraft carrier with the new electromagnetic launch sling,along with many changes. Even the toilet system was a nightmare and crazy expensive to keep going. The name escapes me now but it gave the impression it was overengineered and way over budget and schedule due to unforseen endless problems.

Looks like it. The air intake and cockpit without nose cone. How odd.

Nice spot! Do American marines still use the harrier?

@@poorfordtransitowner1627 Yes.

It might be for training. I know the US often has a hulk fuselage to drag around on deck for various training exercises. Stuff like crew extraction and combat damage repair.

Yes its off an old RAF Harrier on HMS Prince of Wales used for deck and emergency training.

Training

We do have land-based long-range tanker aircraft you know and bases all over the world to launch them from, not everything actually needs to be ON the carrier to work with it

@@1IbramGaunt + Massive gap in the RN Carrier Force no tanker, I feel an V-22 Osprey maybe in order. Your comment is noted, but I never saw a RAF tanker refuel a SHAR near the Falkland's mucker, and as such the RN CAP was very limited in endurance.

@@henryvagincourt4502 what are you on about? RFA Tidespringe and RFA Victoria are part of the carrier group

@@henryvagincourt4502 that's because in the Falklands all our Handley-Page Victor tankers were relay-refueling Vulcans haha, just because you didn't see them didn't mean they weren't there

@@henryvagincourt4502 you're actually entirely right about tanker and AEW versions of V-22 Ospreys being perfect for the Queen Elizabeth class though, I actually couldn't agree more about that, tell the MOD not RU-vid haha; in the meantime however we can make do with long-range land-based tanker aircraft flying from overseas bases like I said, that or either a Merlin helicopter or one of these new Taranis or Vixen drone designs, something like that that'll be able to operate off the carrier and do in-air refueling

Unless it gets loaded nearer to the western side of Odessa i wouldn't even attempt it . That would be the first thing that Russia would disallow , the ability to make money to buy weapons from selling grain . It's not like 20% of the country would be invisible to the Russians , just not how it works in a war i'm afraid . Plus , you won't be allowed to fly a Nato countries flag and approach Ukraine .

What the hell are you on about!! The Russian Navy is just as bad as ours.

@@waynemongo yes MEin Fuhrer. There was someone like you around 80 years ago. He thought the same only to get stuck ina quagmire for the next 4 years. He’s name was Adolf. Never underestimate how stubborn the Russians are and how much they love their country.

Or just an old battleship with some missiles and C-WIS added like USS Missouri

@@1IbramGaunt trouble is you can mess around with these modern ships with jamming signals and so on. You can't jam the old fashion shells

I think Russia relies on luck to power her ships, what did happen to their carrier?

Training, probably for either familiarisation or pilot-rescue

Poke their nose in? The intercepts in their neighbourhood are just as much training and intelligence gathering missions for the Russians and Chinese.

I think that’s opposite damn ass. Like really going to Black Sea, then says Russia threatening UK? This shows how damn western is.

@@haeveen8255 no sir this shows you don’t know the difference between dumb and damn so ….

You are crazy. When a UK sailor aboard a Astute starts killing off the crew? You lose lives. Just like the HmS Kent lost lives. Please explain to their families how their loved ones corpses are 'readiness honed'? UK now has a zombie army?

@@MrFlatage why provide a balanced and coherent response when you can blow something completely out of proportion. Good work.

because the yanks want to start a new cold war!and the stupid brit. gov. will do as ordered from wash./pentagon! SAOR ALBA

@@franciscruickshank8794 stroppy porridge nosher 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Maybe they are a little too easily antagonised. We don't regularly invade their airspace like they do to the UK.

If anything this is proof of the opposite. We were just going about our business and the Russians kept poking us with a stick just like when they send their nuclear payload capable bombers into UK airspace.

By letting them poison people on UK soil, you mean?

Well its the front part of an ex RAF harrier used for deck training.

The Black Sea is a "Russian pond", they can also use ground based anti-ship missiles in large numbers, any ship there that is not Russian is a sitting duck in a case of a real war.

I don’t think they have any hypersonic missiles in Service at the moment, but they will become obsolete from lasers soon

@@erlend6338 You got to know, Hypersonic missiles have heat shields, which can withstand the amount of heat a laser would generate (Since they go out then go in the atmosphere) also, Lasers are used more on destroyers and frigates which means they won't be able to produce enough power to fully use it.

@@erlend6338 lasers cant shoot what they cant lock on to and Kinzel is in service

Kinzel system doesn’t work well.

They wouldn’t care because they could wipe that ship out easily

Probably laugh as much as we would.

That sounds about right, the Russians and the Chinese will be falling about laughing watching you play. one bastion missile will melt your pride and joy.

F-35s can carry the AGM-154 JSOW-ER that can sink Russian ships from 500 Km away. Sure, they can be intercepted, but how many missiles does the Russian ship carry? The JSOW is comparatively cheap, much cheaper than the missiles used to intercept them. And the US can afford a lot of them.

Oh you "would imagine" that would you

@@1IbramGaunt Why? What's your take? You must be an expert.

@eLKy 15 Yes .. today ... for now and maybe for a decade until countermeasures are figured out. Sure, deploy them now but don't think that they are a 30 year solution. They are a 10 year solution that costs like a 30 year solution. American superiority? America is frighteningly behind in the game-changing hypersonic world that could send all those carriers to the bottom. Beware of hubris. (Is America even going to exist as one country by the end of this decade?)

@@abrahamdozer6273 never claimed I was, and nothing specific, guess I just automatically suspected Russian paid-troll the moment I read your comment, but apologies if I was mistaken

@eLKy 15 Thinking that you've got it all solved just because you are American is fatally flawed thinking. Nazi Germany considered themselves to be "uber alles" as well and they went down in flames. Never assume and never underestimate your adversaries. Some day, someone will kick America's ass because Americans assumed that being American was enough of a defense.

It's always in for repairs