Up Close To Britain’s Most Powerful Warship: HMS Queen Elizabeth | Forces TV 

And we will always have yours 🇬🇧🇺🇸

When they were in the U.S last week they tried to beat Florida Man on his home turf

Late entrants though, try having our backs from the start of the conflict, like we do for you.

Most Americans realize the true about uk. They are two face and will always back stab us.

@@RR-ty6zz I don't know who told you that but most us brits love the usa so ain't no backstabbing going on

Apparently it was built with the F35 in mind. Truly awesome war plane! I know we sold you the vtol blueprints years ago though haha 🇬🇧 Britain & America 🇺🇸 will always be friends. Wish we could drag the U.K. across the Atlantic.

Tom tdh. So do we.

​@Astuteous Maximus While it is a salient point that has a lot of truth in it, with HMS Conqueror's sinking of the ARA Belgrano, being a controversial move which nevertheless, shocked the Argentines into a more tentative approach to the Falklands Conflict, with all the strategic benefits that entailed by making them more timid to show up in the conflict after that point with their naval assets, I'd argue there are two main counterarguments to make: 1. Argentina is neither Russia or China; and those latter two are Britain's primary theoretical adversaries in most present day scenarios (of course, others like Iran and North Korea are on Britain's mind, too - North Korea only recently threatened to ''destroy'' the UK and nobody seemed to care he said that but it certainly would have raised some eyebrows; as mad as North Korea clearly is, a threat is a threat and should still be looked into) I don't trust North Korea as far as I could throw a Stegosaurus. Argentina is nothing like as strong and capable as China or Russia - and even Iran currently has far greater strategic options to use against Britain (primarily, in trying to harm our trade, and in the very least, forcing Britain to spend a lot of money on escorting our shipping through the Straits of Hormuz and distracting ships that would be valuable elsewhere in the world e.g. in disaster relief operations) The UK using hunter-killers to scare off Argentina is one thing; that won't work with China. Obviously any scenario where conflict between the UK and China happens, is theoretical only and we know that the USA and others would be drawn in too. But in the vacuum of logic scenario where the UK and China duke it out on their own in a war gaming like scenario? Hunter-killers will be very, very important for Britain; but so will the carriers. The carriers were in the Falklands, too, I must remind you - remember, the outnumbered British Sea Harriers, first won air parity and then air superiority. Hunter-killers could do little to stop the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, suffering severe losses and damage to Argentine air attacks, could they? The primary defence against that came, of course, from the surface fleet and the carrier air wings themselves (but inevitably, being so outnumbered at first and within such close proximity to Argentina, their attacks would get through and cause harm; French exocet missiles didn't help that situation, either, bloody French -.-) With all due respect to Argentina, the threat they posed was modest back then and pretty laughable in the 21st century now. As of 2019, the British presence on the Falklands could very easily fend off anything Argentina has at the moment. Argentina is in no shape to be fighting anyone, with a tanking economy and a military using stuff they were using during the Falklands War. Britain has Eurofighter Typhoons down there man lol not gonna see Argentina daring to attack the Falklands any time soon. Point is, carriers were just as strategically important, though of course as part of task groups with many escorts. The escorts suffered to keep the Argentines away from the carriers, which were the centrepieces of the task groups upon which all depended. Lose the carriers, lose the war. It was that simple. Sure, the British submarines could keep sinking Argentine ships well outside the exclusion zone if permitted (though, considering the backlash over the sinking of the Belgrano - whose own Captain literally stated was making a turn to get within the exclusion zone to attack British ships to disrupt their landing operations - I doubt that would ever be allowed) If submarine warfare was allowed to be unrestricted however, Argentina would lose it's entire merchant marine and surface fleet eventually. But that wouldn't change the fact that, in that scenario, British carrier/(s) had been lost and the heart of the task forces ripped out. I've seen documentaries where leading figures in the British military involved in the war, literally say that without their carriers it'd be impossible as they'd lose air cover and if they lose that it'd mean they'd have lost many more ships and hundreds, if not thousands more British lives. Quite simply, the carriers were the linchpins of the operations and without them they'd have gone home to avoid serious losses (more serious than they were, even with the carriers being there to provide invaluable air support) The hunter-killers did their job well; but the carriers did too. Both were effective. Ergo, both were valid platforms. [1/2]

2 Bro not 1 HMS Queen Lizzie Carrier has a Brother HMS Prince Of Wales with the same capabilities but slightly heavier :-)

we have no beef with either the russian or the chinese man in the street. the era of governments getting us all to turn up and kill each other in financially ruinous wars for the benefit of a third party is quite thankfully drawing to a close. only war im fighting with china or russia anytime soon is a memewar.. in which case they will surely lose 😆

Pedro Rocha get mad Argentine 😂😂😂

Anchors away?... don't think so: Should be anchors aweigh, which means the anchor has been raised from the sea bed. 'Anchors away' means the anchors fallen off.....

I think you mean Britain.

Pedro Rocha Someone getting mad about the falklands?

United Kingdom or British isles .

Would be wonderful to see her sailing alongside FS Charles de Gaulle one day 🇬🇧🤝🇫🇷

The French would be opposed to that idea. The Queen Elizabeth would dwarf the Charles de Gaulle. They wouldn't want to be seen as inadequate in comparison to the British.

Hopefully we'll see your new aircraft carrier alongside it in the future!

Not better than Charles De Gaulle... I just love that Aircraft carrier....❤️❤️

@@rahulchaudhary-xg9vz It Is better. Holds up to 70 AC. With the lastest tech. With the best jets to go on it

You only need a few type 45's its better then anything it will come up against the type 45 is better then what the US have.

faron tilley a few for what exactly? If you just want a few for fleet protection then we have enough, just. If you want to include for everything else they are committed too then we don’t. We don’t have nearly enough ships to cover our commitments around the world, NATO, shipping protection throughout the worlds trouble hotspots, protection of our waters unless we are happy to continue to escort hostile countries warships with patrol boats.

@@forzaisspeed As good as they may be they can only be in one place at a time... originally there were meant to be 12 of them.

@@FallenPhoenix86 I know we were meant to have 16 then it went to 12 then 10 and now 8 but just saying 1 type 45 is better then anything else out there.

@@forzaisspeed probably is, fact is though that no matter how good it might be it needs to be in two places at they same time to do what HMG wants.... At any given time at least one , maybe two, will be under a maintenance or refit cycle, so in real terms we only really have 4.

love from uk.

🇬🇧🤜🤛🇺🇸

Your trues brothers ? The ones who taxed you and killed you ? 🤣

brother in arms in making chaos in the world

@@selimgokalp2805 Over 200 hundred years ago. I think they have forgiven Britain. Making friends destroys your enemy while benefitting both.

Second one coming soon!

A £3bn floating pub.... if carlsburg made pubs.....

Me too mate, I've been chomping at the bit to see these carriers on full operations, and seeing the exersises with the USMC F-35s too was amazing to see, during Exercise Joint Warrior is a major biannual multi-national military exercise which takes place in the United Kingdom, predominately in north west Scotland. It is the successor of the Neptune Warrior exercises and Joint Maritime Course. Wiki; Joint Warrior is organised by the UK Ministry of Defence and is Europe's largest military exercise

@@rec1962 im not sure.. maybe 12bn for everything involved like the f35 but I think the boat itself was 3

It's not named after the current queen. It's actually named after a dreadnought ship from WW1, which in turn was named after Queen Elizabeth 1.

Royalty just like religion is a stain on humanity which in turn is holding us back. And if a nuclear war occurred all royal families don’t deserve to see out the war in safety.

@@Pebb86 Well without rulers. A country will turn into an anarchy

@@Pebb86 how's our royalty holding us back, it's just a figurehead.

@@helmuthvonmoltke858 royalty dont even rule anymore.

God bless our big Uncle Sam

Your special allies and mates with the UK and Visor Verser USA..!!

Thats kinda pathetic tbh. The USN are the only ones who have proper carrier groups

@@kevinbaboolal4225 We will most likely end up doing what the US is doing and creating multinational Carrier Strike Groups. The US is now involving German, Australian, Norwegian and Danish ships into their groups further strengthening Alliances and i see the UK going the same route eventually. Especially as we need more ships as it is to further project power to russia, china and north korea.

@@kevinbaboolal4225 we are a small island country give us some credit. I know some people salivate over our perceived historical power but considering our population we are doing well in my opinion.

@@oskahuxley6322 im a big RN fan and I am salty af the RN is so small

@@kevinbaboolal4225 likewise my guy. We have to be proud of what we have though. It's a good time for the RN .New frigates, destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers. The only thing we can really ask for is quantity in my opinion. We need more type 26s and type 45s now that the issues have been ironed out (thanks to the American designed intercoolers). We also need to make more ships for export for example a carrier for Australia and Canada.

British Empire and military might ended 100 year’s ago with the age of the modern era

@@BigRed2 pull up to our coast and see what happens

@@BigRed2 At least be accurate, its been 77 years now, and we are still more powerful than most nations.

Thanks For Your Service Keeping Your Country Safe👏

I've had many a tour been in every compartment I worked on it

US Marines..... what a bunch of girls! Ha ha just kidding :)

@@siphotheguy1870 I'd like to see you repeat that joke face-to-face with a Marine.

You will be pleased to know that a USMC squadron of f-35s is on board for the first deployment as part of a joint exercise.

Awesome carriers and Australia should consider them its own. The motherland is back after Brexit

@@hoggarththewisesmeagol8362 is this CANZUK idea goes ahead the empire will basically exist again and the UK, Aus, NZ and canada will make up the 4th largest economy in the world.

@@hoggarththewisesmeagol8362 hell yeah

Canzuk!

You good folks have the shiny new HMAS Canberra, not as big but at least as cool!

That's comforting.

Most likely more than 1 in secret

Nope. 2 is precisely enough. No more, no less.

What they do need is more destroyers and frigates.

@@RR-us2kp we need a bigger navy overall

@@BMTHmosher exactly

THANKS CAP'N .

Yes

AR6_ airsoft so did I and it was massive

I would of seen it aswell, however my group decided it was too busy (myself included) and that we will return later... Later arrived and it was even busier. Never got past the hangar. 😭

airhead

anorak

@AngloSaxon. empty idiot,popeyes are in far flung places ,should be protecting our shores...like Iran does theres

Great comment and that new Italian ship is a beauty. I saw it's launching in a vid and noted it had two islands.

🇬🇧🇮🇹

Look forward to seeing British and Italian F-35Bs cross-decking in the future.

Maybe Italy and the U.K. need to unite militarily against the EU?

Trieste is a lovely ship, she is an aircraft carrier as well I think, she fits 14 F35b but can easily double up for helicopters.

Don't forget china

@@pipmill7076 Don't forget Russia.

@@MikeJones-uc5eu Russia will be too preoccupied with China to worry about Biden.

I think you mean russia and china

Sadly it was always Russia

Mark C you’ll never hear the astute, but the astute will hear you halfway across the world...

KiLl3R Mem3StAR Just the we like it 👍

@@tyler_bt3326 What was that Loud Bang??🤣🤣🤣

I want to see Eddie the eagle with rockets on his ankles take off the ramp.

Plop gear

Also smash a bottle of wine against the ship for extra posh points

I can see Jeremy Clarkson already checking the tip of the ramp 😂

Leigh Pemberton Some say he grew gills and now spends his time playing poker with the local sea life.

Right, because that leaves us a wealth of assets to meet our other global commitments.. Not to mention the added strain when ships require maintenance (read: often). Having almost our entire available surface fleet escorting one carrier is not a viable option. We simply need more.

@MI6 This is a bare bones, peacetime escort. In a hot war the RN would be forced to rely on allies for escort cover - and relations with our European partners are great at the minute, right? Take a look at the wiki for the Navy's current deployments and see if you think we have the ships to "make ends meet". We don't.

@MI6 not nearly enough, this battle group cannot be effective far from friendly shores, because it can't fly fixed winged AWACS, severely limiting its ability to conduct effective air operations against any competent enemy.

@MI6 helicopter awacs, means it cant fly as high, resulting a very short detection range, it can fly far resulting a smaller control area, it has a weak radar due to the limited weight which means fewer target tracked. as of today to only carrier battle group capable of independent missions in far seas is the US navy, with Chinese navy fast catching up with their 3rd catapult equipped carrier. the upper limit of this carrier battle group might be enough against Iran in a very limited way, even that's a bit of a stretch. Carrier are for big boys, either go big or go home, only CATOBAR carriers are true carriers.

@@obsidianstatue enough to match Iran, are you feeling ok? There's arguments to be made between catobar blah blah but they both have positives and negatives. The carriers are more than capable and a couple of the most powerful carriers in the world, with state of the art radars (just ask NATO about what training against our radars is like) Bored of people acting like anything we do is a joke.

andy=gay

@@redted366 You = 40 virgin

@@redted366 ?

@@echo_cx0324 ?

great target for them dolphins ha ha ha ha ha ha

Young8Apollo god shave the queen!

SchwanzusLongus 😂

Because no body else will ! :)

There is no god. Get someone who exists to save her instead.

Loose Seal Royalty just like religion is a stain on humanity which in turn is holding us back. And if a nuclear war occurred all royal families don’t deserve to see out the war in safety.

Dokdo is japanese

@@exe4747 why?

@@user-tt4bt7sq4y its Korean I was just kidding Btw why is ur channel name like this?

@@exe4747 oh... I'm sorry lol

@@user-tt4bt7sq4y ok no worries

And leased a Ford class to go with them :) Of course, we'd need to bring back the Press Gang but hey, small price to pay, right? :) :)

They are building a second one. HMS Prince Of Wales. Infact I think its already built and is undergoing sea trials rn.

@Vlodec Still crying because JC got kerbstomped at the polls?

Another two would only cost 7 billion,, thats 3 billion less than we give the EU each year for nothing in return !

Absolutely because we are proud of our country

Airforce is very close 2nd, only because the nuclear deterrent is navy would i agree

As an ex squaddie, the army is most important. The navy & RAF can't win a land war in its proper sense, yes you can nuke them to hell & leave a unhabitable planet & then what? Just paddle or fly about saying we've won. We need all three but only the army can win & then rebuild. I salute you all. Attention..

@@seltaeb3302 I think it's the RN. No one else can transport the army and provide expeditionary air support. The importance of the RN and army is almost equal. The RAF is third, should focus on keeping the enemy aircraft away.

Why would we need more? All we really need is nuclear weapons, this Is mainly for humanitarian crises and overseas small operations. A Nuclear sub is more powerful than any ship in the sea

Makes sense, Britain is an island, so it needs ships

We have our moments both of us however there's nothing more important than family. Our best friends in the world though good and bad times we look out for each other. 🇺🇸 🤝 🇬🇧 ✌ from England

Tahmed Become an aviator, that’s the best bet.

Yeah dont bother, get a proper job

I wanna become an RAF Engineer and hopefully I can work with these aircraft on HMS QE

El-Shep Idk man, seems to me flying jets, shooting weapon systems and travelling the world seem better than sitting in an office everyday until your 68.

Yeah, first step, don't ask for advice on RU-vid. Ask an AFCO.

chippledon1 yes and the Prince of Wales is doing sea trials, so for the 1st time in at least 10 yrs the UK has 2 carriers in the water& it's been since before the Falklands that the Brits have had 2 full size carriers..so way to go Britain.. :)

Mike Neufield not just carriers but super carriers

@@harleyokeefe5193 they are not supercarriers. Only the US has supercarriers

@@tigeruntamed6036 false, the Qe class have been given the classification super carriers due to being on par technologically with the Gerard R Ford and beating it in some factors like the innovative dual superstructure design. She is most certainly a super carrier.

@@harleyokeefe5193 A super carrier that carries half the planes as American ones. So advanced

I was wondering why I recongized him.

wesley yes that’s correct. I remembered him also

Used to, lol

@@Kvasiir He said ruled not rules. :P

@@CommonSenserules1981 😄

Clash_Royale Gameplay How did you cope?? A whole 20 minutes!

Clash_Royale Gameplay definitely worth it

wow,,,saddo

We only have a few frigates/ destroyers to far for it it be a issue

There will always be frigates and destroyers attached to the carrier group and they will likely go in for maintenance at the same time as the carrier. So while a carrier is available, there will always be ships to escort it. Whether we have enough to provide an adequate escort is an issue, but our allies should on many occasions be able to help provide some of it.

It gets sunk....

Boris will sort it. ;)

Joker’s little sister

The type 45 is a anti air destroyer , the best in the world designed to lock and destroy swarms of aircraft with 2 defending it well good luck to any air craft trying to even get close

But Britain is not likely to engage China or Russia anytime soon alone though!

@@mk_gamíng0609 This ain't WWII....modern air tactics wouldn't have valuable aircraft trying to "strafe" a modern naval vessel - "Fire & Forget" missile swarms and horizon-hugging cruise missile attacks. The U.S. would probably send AWACS to try to jam or counter the 45"s radar suites...

both ships are to be fitted with ship to air missles,i beliee the sea ceptor

Or the unsc pillar of autumn

Walter D Wormack I wouldn’t call it hate, I’d call it envy.

@Caleb M. F we are good eggs just get on with it get it done home for tea and crumpets. We make no fuss really it's in our nature just to crack on.

@@para7843 who asked?

Nope.The rum ration was stopped years ago......aaargh

@@neilhellens8956 Really? *No "Rum Ration", aboard Royal Navy Ships of the Line?* What's next? Are they going to *bring back flogging, & keel-hauling?* (Hey, There's a thought! Maybe if a certain *"badly-coiffed, U.S. President", were to 'mis-behave', towards Her Majesty, what better way to teach a lesson, than to "run him under the keel of the Aircraft Carrier, that's named after her!"*

GamerBoyLive1 all I’m gonna say is that, based off your name and about section. You dont sound like a veteran

Yeah right.

Simon Robinson Welp best get to unbolting the ones already fitted.... The MOD holds a stock pile of Phalanx of around 50 of the bloody things for ship and land use. So no they are not going to the US to get CWIS fitted.

WOW

Maybe they should anyway, CWIS is crapola against most treats, and the RAM is Bolt-Plug- and play on the same mount.

@@gaz-3711 Who cares...you're damn sure over here trying to work with our Carrier Groups...stay over there and do your own thing..

@@elykeom1 Let me guess, you were on a ship that used CWIS and it didn't work and massive amounts of people were killed? If that isn't your experience please shut up.

And its not nuclear powered

@Ayaz Afridi The article was about Aircraft Carriers not subs! The USA has more Aircraft Carriers than the rest of the world put together. Ten of them are 'Super' carriers, nuclear powered.

mikeymike1001 why nuclear power? got its pro’s sure but far less than conventional. they would still require RAS for av gas, and resupply, all escorts bar the sub need to be fuelled too. It restricts what sea lanes and port will take them. Then there is the far lower lifetime overall cost including what to do with spent fuel rods and eventual decommissioning that can cost just as much as building a new ship. Hell most of the old Polaris subs are still sitting waiting decommissioning.

Mark Cooke we don’t have enough of either frigates or destroyers. 1982 we had 42 frigates now we have 13 and they aren’t being replaced with nearly enough. Hence the cost cutting from 12 to 6 destroyers and the cost cutting measure of the type 31s. Simply put if this shop goes to sea we don’t have any ships elsewhere. It’s numbers that are the problem.

Sadly catapults are expensive to develop and require high levels of maintenance. They are also power hungry. I think the British did a darn good job here, a great carrier and a solid hangar complement. The costs savings and lower dry weight can allow it to possibly carry more munitions but ultimately its all the Navy’s decision. (I agree that the British need more DDs and Frigates)

Kwek Jeng Yong the design of these carriers was decided by politicians who wanted to save money. They chose to have ski ramps instead of catapults for political reasons not defense driven requirements. That was decided by then chancellor Gordon Brown. The next PM David Cameron wanted to install catapults by because of his cost cutting to the military budget stuck with cheaper ski ramps. Both these governments between them cut the number of replacement frigates and destroyers significantly from the already inadequate number. So the whole history of military spending on these projects has been a farce. The end result is a large carrier with short range jets with low payloads and not enough ships for the navy. Notwithstanding no carrier capability for over a decade and the loss of skills associated with it. The whole thing has been a shambles.

@@davidrobertsemail the military ignored Cameron changing to catapults and continued with the STOVL plan which they chose in the first place off the back of the Harrier.

@@davidrobertsemail a carrier group has 2 frigates and 2 destroyers. That leaves 15 left, how can't we have any elsewhere?

True, HMS Dreadnought and the other three could obliterate a continent between them :/

@@ThePalaeontologist Dreadnought wouldn't do much, it's still on the drawing board. Vanguard however...

@@davidhouseman4328 I was quite clearly speaking generally about what will come to pass. Your comment is invalid as the Queen Elizabeth-class are not yet fully operational themselves (with full air wings in full service) Andrew Baker had compared the carriers to the submarines. It is fair to compare an incomplete ship with an incomplete sub, as what is actually being compared is their firepower in the original comment, obviously. And no, Dreadnought is not still on the drawing board. Dreadnought was laid down for construction on the 6th October 2016; a day shy of 35 months ago. Valiant, Warspite and King George VI are the ones still just having been announced. £38 Billion plus will go to the entire program, for the 4 subs, at least as planned. I get what you're saying that the Vanguard-class is *currently* the one that could do that. But that wasn't what I was referring to. How do you know I wasn't broadly including the near future in what I said? Obviously they aren't finished (and yes, the QE-class are much further along than the Dreadnought-class) But the point remains; you're wrong about what I said. I was speaking generally not just about the operational, currently in use (as of September 2019) ones. You assumed that, not me. All about context.

@@ThePalaeontologist I was wrong on the drawing board. But it's odd to respond to UK most powerful warship with one that won't be launched for years.

@@davidhouseman4328 It isn't odd at all. Dreadnought will be far more powerful than Vanguard. That is the point, get it?

They are already building another one and I think I read somewhere they might be considering a third

You got 6-9 billion to spare? ;)

You have absolutely no need for even one carrier. It's a ridiculous vanity project you were duped into by the yanks so they could sell some F35s

dan lugo Alternatively the need to replace what would have been a 45 year old set of three through deck cursers and a similar group of aged Harrier air frames might have had a bigger input to the choice. What was the alternative? given at the time the government was serious about a carrier based eurofighter at the same time.

The EU doesn't need our military because the EU isn't a military organisation. NATO might need our military, we aren't leaving that.

How does the EU not need our military?? Look at all the diployments in the Middle East? after the states we are by far the biggest deployed military to the regions. We also supplied the most medical staff after the states . Along with US we were responsible for the majority of of logistics and infrastructure. What about our current Eastern European deployments. Yes those are UN deployments but we still are answerable to the EU. out of it, we’d have less obligation not just in deployments but train EU country militaries. Plus , we were instrumental in the design, build and deployment of the Euro. Fighter. Again though we were later able to refit and modify to our own needs , during its design and construction we had to concede certain parts to France. So I really don’t see how our military is nothing to do with our standing in the Eu. Which also includes intelligence sharing. Again once out of the EU we’ll have zero obligation to share and any we do will be completely at our discretion? So again I’m baffled how you see our military as having nothing to do with our EU membership? And that’s before you get into things like shared weapons development etc??

@@ULSTERISBRITISH EU = economic organisation. NATO = military organisation. You've named lots of NATO based deployments and direct government to government projects like the Eurofighter but not EU ones. Try learn what the EU is?

That would a good idea manned by Indian and Royal navy could also bring Australia and New Zealand in to the mix

We have an AEW aircraft, its Merlin crowsnest. It may not be a capable but it won't cost us 1bn for catapults and then 1bn for the Hawkeye fleet. That means we can keep two carriers. France is also supposed to have two carriers...

Paul Connors it’s a thing called helicopters