SPECIAL ACCESS: Onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth In Cyprus During CSG21! 

agree mate. would love to see footage of the USMC/USM/RN working together but I realise this would be hard to achieve.

That large flag with the 5 gold stars. 😢⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🇺🇸

During the Falklands war the US brought in a carrier just in case.

@@sebastian2501 no they offered us a carrier

@@sebastian2501 The US also brought in a submarine (U-571)..

@@Dave-hu5hr ...lol...yeah it came from Hollywood ...nice one 🤣👍👍

@@sebastian2501 .. And they built Disney World on South Georgia 🤦🤣🤣

a hotchpotch of tri service personal because the navy has lost it's capability and budget to run it themselves and help from the americans because even with all the 3 services together they can't run the flat deck ship for lack of aircraft and trained crew. it's more sad than anything else really.

Disco nights are on a saturday.

@@swunt10 They can run it just fine. However, yes, they can't use it to its full potential.

@@swunt10 Someone always has to be a "Negative Nancy"!

@@swunt10 utter nonsense

Go forward, Great-Britain! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

@@frankmueller6522 Genau meine Meinung!

Her brother ship Prince of Wales

We stand with USA 🇺🇸 and all allies who serve to protect our freedoms and lives while we sleep 🇬🇧

Well, they're just on a glorified yacht tour now aren't they, not really "working" at their given task - that which their expressly designed for, unless you think walking around a party with your chest puffed out staring down potential challengers a job lol.. Still it's a beautiful vessel.

@@Veldtian1 hey, gotta start somewhere

@@Veldtian1 The precursor to "Still its a beautiful vessel" - You must be a battle scarred veteran thank you for your service

@@snaggalfrash9013 Both Britain and the USA have similar international goals and interests. I’m sure your founding fathers would love to see the cooperation.

Yep it feels good to get your hair ruffled by the older cooler kids.

They are more than impressed. The Royal Navy puts an emphasis on aesthetics. the Russians and Americans only on practicality.

@@JCStaling There is nothing on that ship that isn't functional.

Absolutely.Mightily impressive.There were rumours of at least 1 nomadic tent destroyed but that has not yet been confirmed.

American impressed ? Only in your dream 🤣

Netherlands and USA

From America...Proud to be allies with our faithful and courageous friends in GB. We go back a long way. What a beautiful and capable carrier. We indeed have challenging times ahead of us.

That it does. God save the Queen and God bless America, and indeed all those who sail with our Navy.

@@KillingDeadThings and yet all we do is only to support Western Civilisation.

@@JCStaling I'm not really sure what your point is m8.

Made me think of a song. Completely unrelated, Five Brothers by Marty Robbins.

@@KillingDeadThings There was also a song made in their honour called Sullivan.

@@stephenobrien5909 I'll look it up

It’s USS The Sullivan’s

It's odd that they were all on the same ship. Often the armed forces would try to spread siblings across different units so as to increase the chances of some surviving.

My father served on HMS Indomitable in the 50s.

Give me the 1950s anytime.

Reminds me of the time I served in the Royal Marines 42 Commando 60/70s. Great memories!

@@6mojo were you ever deployed?

@@6mojo reminds me when I was in the 2nd Cheshires, never saw a boat, but wanted a go on one 👍🤣

Managing waste going global

First and Only

@@TheAverlorn you have good taste in books haha

Cyprus is very important for are security

@@arealbobbydazzler2520 our

There's also a Dutch ship too

Yes

Ha ha, yeah, be careful with the country's Ferrari collection :)

6.5 billion (US) divided by 36 (F-35A), equals, 180.5 million per. The more that are sold, the cheaper they get. And what they get is the best fighter available in the world. (Not counting the F-22 Raptor.)

@@unitedwestand5100 I mean, that price is also with spare parts and stuff like that

@@bobyouruncle4708 ,. Poppycock! what is 3.4 billion / 180.5 million. Answer is, 18.836565097..... You could buy 18.9 F-35s with the money you claimed.... Spare Parts? Lololololololol Your excuse is sadder than your original comment....

@@unitedwestand5100 My Original Comment?

So?

Episkopi 59-60 for me Royal signal Centre as a teleprinter operator , loved my time there as a N Serviceman .

The UK Royal Navy (and the US Marine Corps) operate the F35B, which is the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F35 Lightning II. As such, it is fitted with a big Shaft Driven Lift Fan (SDLF) right behind the cockpit that sucks air in from the top and blow it through the bottom to aid the aircraft with lift. This blown air, when coupled with the thrust from the vectored nozzle at the rear, allows the F35B to perform STOVL manoeuvres, hovering manoeuvres, and when required and when necessary, Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) manoeuvres as well. The flap you are referring to is the door that opens up to expose the SDLF and allows it to suck air in. There is a set of two foldable doors on the underside of the aircraft as well, opposite the top door, just behind the front carriage wheel, through which the air sucked in by the SDLF from the top is blown through. Once the aircraft is moving forward at sufficient velocity for the wings to generate lift, the lift fan doors close, and the F35B looks just like another F35, and flies like one too (to a certain extant).

We will have 3 carrier groups there. India will have at least one carrier group. Australia, and Japan will be there. No one will hardly even notice the 3 or 4 little British ships.. They might as well save the fuel, and stay at home.

@@unitedwestand5100 Not sure what point you are trying to make. the UK Carrier outclasses the Indian Carrier and it's not close. "Save the fuel" i know you are joking but the Carrier will be deployed somewhere using fuel regardless so it obviously makes sense to use those resources to put another Carrier in the area to send a stronger message to China. The UK actually poses a bigger threat to China than India does because Pakistan is a Chinese ally now. India has a much larger population and military potential but between the Himalayas natural defense and the offset offered by Pakistan which is not only a very large country in population but posses Nuclear. Australia is there? Australia is still a part of the British Crown and still recognizes the reigning Queen Elizabeth so I find it odd you would use them as a nation to dismiss the UK with the irony of the UK carrier being named Queen Elizabeth. Lets also not forget that Britain has been a major player in Southeast Asia for hundreds of years and at times was the biggest player in the region. They've fought in Pakistan, India, Burma/Thailand, Vietnam, China etc. They had naval engagements with the Imperial Japanese Navy. They have their own economic influence in places like Malaysia and Singapore and should still feel a responsibility to defend Hong Kong and Taiwan based on their history and influence. I fail to see the point or the joke in demeaning the UK Carrier Group and their contributions they will bring to the mission and the region as a whole. The rise of the UK Navy with the new carriers is terrific news for the USA. Britain with the new Carriers not only helps the USA and our other allies with their physical contributions but post Brexit offers the USA great geopolitical leverage over the rest of NATO specifically Germany and France who are the power brokers within the European Union. Germany is even more influential than France and is the leading power in the EU. It is FAR MORE beneficial to the USA not only in the physical sense but in the Geopolitical sense that the British Carrier is deployed East helping the USA and it's allies against our main rival China than the alternative which is not "staying home and saving fuel" but would see the Carrier deployed helping Germany and the Baltics as this is insignificant to US interest or worse deployed helping France in the Mediterranean which often runs counter to US interests in places like Libya and Syria. As an American I'm thrilled with these new UK Carriers and the way they are being used. You mentioned some other nations but the UK is the strongest and most important partner the USA has. The UK has great technological capabilities, strong soldiers / sailors and most importantly great flexibility. Many other USA allies have far greater concerns close to home. South Korea (North Korea) and Israel (Iran, Radical Islam, Palestine etc) for example as well as India (Pakistan) who you mentioned. These nations offer the USA marginal benefits in alliance against China. Nations like Australia and Canada rival the UK in some respects but not in Naval Warfare capabilities. Neither nation operates carriers. Both nations recognize the British Crown and fall below the UK in hierarchy since any major UK actions will naturally draw them in as well which only further strengthens the reliability they provide the USA. That leaves Taiwan who isn't fully recognized as a nation and has little military production capability who is completely reliant on USA and Japan who is great ally with lots of potential but is obviously still limited by constitutional restrictions which allow the British to easily outclass them. You call the British ships small but the QE is much larger with greater capabilities than the small converted Helo carriers the Japanese have which are more similar in size and scope to the role of Escort Carrier and are not real Fleet Carriers which can lead a Carrier Group or Task Force like the QE is. Lastly you can never have enough ships or planes against a country like China which is huge in area as well as obviously the worlds most populous nation that has a huge military with modern capabilities. Obviously the goal of the mission is not to go to war with China but to deter Chinese aggression. That said if a war were to start with China EVERY SINGLE allied vessel in the region would be of use, every one would have an importance especially a powerful modern Carrier Group led by QE. Every F-35 on board with their stealth capabilities would be absolutely critical to the mission of SEAD (suppressing enemy air defense) taking out Chinese Radar and SAM batteries. The main threat isn't Chinese fighters but ground based missile systems. This goes for the planes as well as the ships themselves who would have more trouble defending from hypersonic land based missiles than they would from air attack or submarines. This is how Air-Superiority becomes Air Supremacy which allows not just safer operations for other older non stealth fighters such as F16/F18 but also the whole bomber fleet and the B52s. Again the F-35s on QE would be critical to this mission FAR MORE than the Mig 29 on Indian Carrier that you claim makes QE unnecessary. So again QE offers not just added numbers which will always be beneficial against the massive military of China but also added capabilities that most of the other ships simply do not possess.

@@thomasdemay9805 ,. Its simpler than that! Far simpler... The QE is a POS manned/womened by Snowflake globalist from a country that can't be trusted. The QE has it's own fake news propaganda media platform on board. (Who does that?) Lol India is a much stronger, effective, and reliable ally.

Yes the RN should make sure there is plenty of tea to drink.🤣

@@robharris8844U Maybe also some traditional rum rations.

@@oceanic8424 Maybe, but tea on the 4th is bagged.☕

The all seeing eye of providence

Not all the missions have to be stealthy ..case in point the shader missions where there is no peer airforce or ground based SAM sites to contend with . Just adds to the flexibility and available payload . Also not all weapons fit inside the internal bays.

Deliberate - see also "Luneburg lens".

Stealth against farmers and goat herders?What would they see at night anyway?

Also don’t forget they are flying near Russian radar sites! You don’t want them gaining intel of the full potential of its radar cross section, and which wave bands and distances it can be detected at and ultimately when a firing solution can be acquired… Adding hard points will give them a greater radar return and so feeding their radar “false” data about it’s “stealth” characteristics….

@@mesterneuman5713 If you think ISIS is made of farmers and goat herders you need to get out more.

Yes there was ,a full Range of F-35B & F-35C

8 RAF (617 Squadron) and 10 USMC (VMFA-211).

This was a joint exercise between the two militaries from the UK and the USA.

@@richardmanginelli2624 nope. All F-35s on board QE are the B variant. As she does not have cats & traps, the C variant cannot fly from her. That's why the US F-35s are USMC F-35Bs, not USN F-35Cs...

@@richardmanginelli2624 soz Richard your wrong buddy,all are F35Bs

maybe on the return leg - it's not been announced yet!

Didn’t the Blair government order both of these new carriers?

@@nedgeson326 signed off by Gordon Brown apparently in 2008

The QE doesn't have a gender never has, the sailors can call it what they want.

Must be transgender calling the Prince of Wales a ‘she’

Correct, ships are female.

@@Autofleet4429 Usually ships are given feminine (sigh, this next word has been ruined by reckless morons; please don't read it as an SJW thing it's just correct word use) _pronouns_ i.e. she/her. Occasionally a warship would very deliberately get given male pronouns, intentionally going against the norm of using the female pronouns. A clear-cut example would be Bismarck; which the Third Reich from the very top down, saw as a male ship, with puerile levels of macho thinking in this. It was literally the Third Reich aping off the German Imperial Otto von Bismarck, from the German Unification Era, post-Franco~Prussian War, pre-WWI, and going, ''Ooo, we're hard". It was that silly. But very seriously, the German sailors and officers absolutely regarded Bismarck as male. All state propaganda worded it with the he/him pronouns, very deliberately. But this example is just to show how rare that is where usually, and typically with great affection built on centuries of tradition, a navy - merchant or military - will call their ship a she/her in the casual, traditional manner, mid-sentence. Then we have the fact that even very obviously masculine ship names, such as HMS _Prince of Wales_ for but one, will still see people referring to her as her, rather than him. Because it just gets absorbed into the wider tradition and doesn't seem to matter. Meanwhile, blatantly feminine ship names like HMS _Queen Elizabeth_ obviously tick both boxes in that it's a feminine name used, while also being referred to as she/her. All this sort of tradition goes back way, way before all the modern social justice shenanigans and social tensions etc political issues etc etc It's more about tradition. Dare I say this following phrase, the "Gender Neutral" sounding ships e.g. pick any from history, I dunno, like HMS _Revenge_ which is just a different kind of word which can evoke masculine or feminine leaning inspirations, will still usually get called she/her casually. It just gets ingrained that way because the Royal Navy is several centuries old and this is all built on centuries of naval, maritime legacy.... ...and then there is Boaty McBoatface ERRR I mean, _Sir David Attenborough_ the oceanographic, polar survey vessel. The popular vote wanted to call that ship Boaty McBoatface. In which case, imagine if they actually allowed that. Boaty McBoatface isn't male or female it's God mode as far as a name goes, amirite?

Ships now a days have to be gender neutral.😂

At least the Americans can have a drink on a British warship.

🥔?

It's pretty easy to beat people with bows and arrows with a carrier 😂🤣😂😋

are you trying to kill people in exercise flights?

@@davidbrisbane7206 ease means nothing. combat isn't defined by being easy or hard.

They flew missions against ISIS in Iraq, I guess that counts as combat missions.

Any mission which involves the use of live munitions against a designated target is a combat mission. So missions against ISIS ect will be called a combat mission.

Maybe stationing a missile silo in the south china sea is little too confrontational for a old imperial national and could send the wrong message to China and our allies in the area. Imagine the cuban missile crisis when the USSR tried the same thing to the US. Also important to remember that our current nuclear submarines have nukes with range which can hit anywhere on the planet.

Just being submerged or hell, even at sea causes a lot of fatigue on the hulls. It's not as simple as just parking them. Ask the Russians and mess they have in Nezametnaya Cove. Although the UK also has Devonport...

Tams and Humble Thief are both right. Parking them on land or shallows or whatever makes them stationary targets and basically silos which would raise tensions significantly and spiral downhill which is why there aren't nuke silos built there anyways. Keeping them in water on the other hand would avoid this but then they aren't parked and are still operating at cost both financial and manpower which the nation can't afford and isn't practice regardless as there are diminishing returns on the older technology and accumulated stress on the sub as a whole basically everything from the hull to the engine to the plumbing system. At some point you have to just move on and make the best deal you can whether to reserve / sell / scrap or whatever.

Something about battered mars bars going down a treat with the us marines 🤔

@@noodles9371 Or deep fried Spaghetti bolognese. 🤮

We've got a better looking one?

If your referring to the prince of Wales it’s not a spare carrier.

@@RNS681 how far behind QE is it, in terms of readiness and equipment - It was referred to as a spare when it was "apparently" not able to be cancelled, because it would cost as much, when David Cameron became PM.

@@karlhawkes3820 it’s currently in the Atlantic Ocean doing rotary aircraft take off and landing flight training.

@@redvulpa1324 ..I see, thanks, ...and the F35 are still on order.

10 - 8 as far as F35bs go... emphasis there is top heavy

That's because of 2 reasons, 1) The UK has only had 21 of our F35 B's delivered, so far and we also need at least 8 - 10 for our other carrier strike group the Prince of Wales with the remaining 3 - 5 being left with the RAF to train on. 2) Our US allies asked us to do them a favour and wait an extra few years for the other 28 F35 B's that we've already paid for out of the 148 we're getting and let the US have them...the UK being a good friend and ally said OK. The US then said, we will put our own F35 B's on your carriers to plug the gap for you for a few years...plus it will allow our own F35 B pilots to learn how to fly on and off a carrier because the US currently doesn't have a carrier that is able to take STOVL F 35 B's because you need a special deck that's able to take the extremely high temperatures of those jets and the UK is the only navy in the world that has that ability. Finally, having 10 US jets stationed on our carrier strike group means if any country try's to attack it then they aren't just attacking the UK they're also attacking the US! No country in their right mind would even think to be that stupid! The UK is more powerful than 98% of all country's...but the US is more powerful than everyone!

@@UFCSTARS not necessarily we do have carriers able to deploy the f35 source: myself a forward deployed marine who tracks the f35s deployments:)

@@uwannakatana3990 I'm not talking about the regular, horizontal take-off and land F35's, I mean the vertical take off and land F35's..., y'know, Harrier Jump Jet style? The US navy must've had at least one of her carriers fitted with a brand new, titanium heat shield deck to absorb the steel melting temperatures from the F35's jets. I'm glad to be wrong, like all Brit's we want a strong America...the stronger the better!

@@UFCSTARS outstanding answer my friend

There are compromises but remember we don’t do anything without being part of US strategy and support. Horses for courses. I’d rather have those two carriers, those jets and astute subs etc than what we had 5 years ago.

@@robinmyman ,. You dont do anything unless it's in your interest. If you can gain from it. (Period)

The undercarriage for the F-35B was designed to take quite a lot of stress to be fair due to the forces put on them during vertical landings which are apparently worse on them than the Ski-Jump. For most aircraft they are much more limited using a Ski-Jump, the F-35B though is capable of taking off with its full fuel and weapons payload with relative ease. It does have a more limited payload than other variants due to the addition of the vertical lift system, but the gap is nowhere near as big as previous generations.

@@Benjd0 ,. The F35C is the one with the bumped up airframe. You can distinguish it from the A, and B by the dual nose wheels. The B has 1/3rd less fuel range due to its intake for the vertical lift fan behind the cockpit. The B is also limited to 7 gs manuverability. The lowest of the 3 variants.

@@robinmyman they don't match the US carriers but they are very capable and the UK definitely got it's bang for it's buck with this class of carriers. UK should be proud. Compared to 5 years ago it's night and day at least from my American perspective. 5 years ago UK was a EU member and had no capability like this. 5 year ago UK was along for the ride with the French Carrier doing the heavy lifting starting proxy wars against Russian allies in Syria. Now today the UK not just has increased political independence from EU but has the capabilities to project their own power against a real power like China. Standing side by side with the USA as a world leader and putting that power to proper use defending the freedom of the people of Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and Korea. Also back to protecting free sea navigation and world trade which seems proper and fitting as it's something UK has been doing for 200 years but seemed to be losing the capability to do. The submarine class is great and critical as well but they obviously go unseen and do not send the message or set the tone the war Fleet Carriers do. Only a nation with carriers of this capability can be considered a true Naval Power and it's wonderful to see UK back to that status. Amazing how far the UK has come in the last 5-10 years politically and geopolitically and these carriers are one of the major and most fundamental parts of that. Criticisms of these carriers is asinine they are more than worth their cost and have already proved their doubters and skeptics wrong.

Duh.

Nonsense, the F35B is absolutely fantastic, a brilliant replacement for the harrier.

100million per unit. Price of freedom baby. Got to keep those seas open, so we can get our Amazon parcels delivered 😎👍

100 million per one but we bought 48 so 4.8 billion but so far only about twenty have been delivered

@@Dan-zc7ut you mean 4.8 billion

@@Spartan-jg4bf yeah thanks just updated it

@@Dan-zc7ut 4.8 Billion plus routing maintenance and upkeep.

Cuz the UK is weak without the United States to carry the weight.

@@prozombie6768 ok I understand!

@@uropepe It allows the US f35b's some carrier and operations experience, plus the US hasn't delivered all it's f35b's to the UK yet.

@@0penminds ok I understand, it‘s a joint venture somehow!

God, you ppl are pathetic.

Thats like a couple pounds 🤦‍♂️

@@MrShadowfax42 You people?

@@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114 A new work vehicle is a couple of £?

@@jamessomying do you also want some of your £ back from the NHS and local council while you're at it?

It is part of a country yes -China.

@@mesterneuman5713 The Spirit of the Tank Man leaves!

@@mesterneuman5713 Chinese leadership can keep telling themselves that, if it makes them feel better. No-one in the west believes it, it's a running joke.

wee Jimmy's no longer identifying as a crankie... Olympics next stop