The best comment I’ve seen relating to the same subject was posted by an American “We have 11 Nimitz Class & 2 Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers & The British have 2 Queen Elizabeth Class & 11 Nimitz Class aircraft carriers.
Sorry to call you out but your graphic indicates that Canada has 2 carriers, you say Canada has 1 carrier, in reality Canada does not currently have any carriers.
Courtesy of that shat leader Trudeau !! Poor Canucks in Canada are experiencing exactly what we would have no doubt experienced if Killary had been given the Presidency... yikes
The US & UK military are so integrated they could be considered as one military force. I am a proud ex uk military veteran and was very proud to serve along side my American brothers in arms. I am still in touch with a lot of US vets and consider them all as family. Both the UK & US forces bring different things that when combined they are a formidable invisible force.
Bode Torgrimson No invincible. The US military is huge compared to the UK but when we train and operate together, in my experience, it’s very slick and very well integrated.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of Britain's naval history. I think it's fascinating. No one else comes close. Century after century of innovation and and victory. Love it
Jono Savine nope were allies and always have been although I agree the us can be annoying at times but we've always been allies and will hopefully stay that way
Comparing the two carriers is nonsensical since they are designed to perform different missions. The Ford class has a its primary task the projection of air power against an enemy. The QE is designed as a hybrid, both aircraft carrier and amphibious support ship. The U.S. Navy has a separate class (America) to handle amphibious support operations. This difference can be easily seen in the number and types of aircraft the two ships carry, with the QE carrying many more helicopters for troop transport as well as attack. The QE also has a dedicated anti submarine role in the North Atlantic against the Russian navy, while the U.S. Navy relies more on its destroyers in this task. Another key factor for designing the QE was the Falklands War against Argentina. The QE is meant to answer the problem of protecting the fur flung island territories that the UK still posses. All of these different missions meant that the Royal Navy had to cram many different capabilities into a single ship class, while the U.S. Navy has the luxury of having many different classes of ships to deal with different aspects of sea warfare.
The QE is not a amphibious assault ship, the U.K government did not know what to do with the second one after the cuts, they tried to sell it, no one would buy it, so they gave it to the royal marines and put a marine sticker on it. The marines still want a amphibious assault ship, the QE has no LCS craft, just aircraft. They wanted to put a cat trap system on it but the U.S was charging them 2 billion per Email launcher (maybe France and U.K will get together and develop their own for the future). Don't get me wrong the QE is a brilliant ship, 600 crew for 50 aircraft is amazing, keep her in port and use her when needed to save fuel costs, its a pure defense carrier, would have been nice to see another NATO nation buy the second one and use it as a aircraft carrier but eh... expensive.
Don't know why people are throwing shit at one another over these ships. The HMS QE is designed to accommodate to British needs and so forth. We aren't as big as America and don't have involvement in many areas of the world anymore so just two types of the QE Class is enough for our needs. Yes it has a ski ramp design and not the widely supported CATOBAR design that the USS Gerald R Ford has so it can't accommodate NATO naval aircraft that aren't STOVL aircraft (even though there's growing calls by military chiefs to have the ships converted back to their original CATOBAR layout). The USS GRF is massive because it needs to be able o deploy a shitload of aircraft and a shitload of raw military power anywhere in the world at any given time. There's going to be more than one because the US is a huge country and has to maintain a constantly dominant presence in numerous areas around the world. Overall both ships are designed to meet their own country's strategic needs and are both absolutely amazing ships.
Liam McKenna part of the QE class's role is to replace HMS Ocean the Royal navy's amphibious helicopter carrier the QE class can carry 250 commandos in carrier layout and 900 commandos in amphibious layout and the QE's have the space to house up to 70 aircraft but will only deploy with roughly 40 ro 50 aircraft.
The Canadians have the best aircraft carrier we like to call it the big canoe it has the most modern extreme fiber wood protection and can stop a baby fish.
The electromagnetic launch is more expensive to install but it's half the reason the Ford exists in the first place. The old steam catapults wore down planes over time and tore smaller planes to pieces. The idea behind the electromagnetic is it will extend the service life of the planes and allow smaller craft such as UAVs to launch safely. Powering the electromagnetic launch system was part of the impetus for the Ford's design, as the new nuclear reactors to designed to increase electrical output to allow the use of the new launch system, much more computing power, and increased automation. All of this decreases long term operating costs, which is the major advantage of the Ford over the older Nimitz class.
john mcdonald Canadians don’t hate Americans, we just think your country is backwards in some ways like health care. The realty is tho, America will 100% protect Canada and not because America likes Canada but because it is something the country must do for its own national security. It’s why China defends North Korea.
@@mayb3jul Nah, in an actual us government report, they did take a look at the death star a little, and they immediately rejected it because its takes too much resources.
Detectives: Lets see who stole the Charles de Gaulle *unmasks* Detectives: CANADA?! But why? Canada: I always hated being in the shadow of France and America I was gonna make make myself into a superpower And i almost got away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids
@@thesenate1504 He is not mad. That is just how the media presents him as. Remember when tensions were escalating with North Korea and they said nuclear war was coming, only for nothing violent to happen?
@@thesenate1504 Democrats are encouraging the rioting and they are the ones stopping Trump from doing anything about it. Take it up with the people responsible instead of blaming the people actually trying to fix it.
Completely wrong about HMS Queen Elizabeth. She does NOT have arresting gear what so ever!! It will be using F-35B STOVL variant. Do some research before spouting crap. Lmao
Stuart Cotterill it does have the potential to have it outfitted thought. It can have a slingshot and resting system installed it just has we are using the F-35B which doesn’t need it. It could fitted if required.
DynaMike pretty much. The french bought the design of us and added an angled flight deck to use catobar, but abandoned it cause of the cost. As for ours they will solely use F-35b’s as well as various helicopters
@William Fairfield Correct. The Typhoon will not currently fly from the UK carriers. At one time the V-22 Osprey was considered, but it was too costly and at the time wasn't particularly good. Since that decision was made the aircraft has been improved. Perhaps one day someone will reevaluate that choice and we could see the Osprey used on the UK Carriers. Arresting wires could be added, the plans were changed during construction to dd them, then they were changed back to work without them. The change back was put down to costs. The recent tests carried out by HMS Queen Elizabeth with the F35Bs have proved that she can be a very successful carrier. In addition to landing the F35s in the same way as the old Harriers, they also did a forward rolling land (i.e. coming from the stern and landing facing forward) and a landing facing the wrong way too. The additional methods of landing on her could mean that she would be more flexible than other carriers. The rolling landing specifically means that the aircraft won't have to dump as much munitions/fuel as would otherwise need to be dumped for a standard vertical landing.
@Hugh Jarce I don't know how well the F35Bs compare to the Harriers, but it is worth remembering that the Harriers managed to perform really well against faster jets in combat. On paper, everyone thought that the Harriers would struggle. If the F35Bs can do the same kind of tricks, such as switching behind a combat aircraft by moving the exhaust from the jets in mid-flight or hovering like a Helicopter and target the enemy or land in a small clearing, then we've made the right choice.
The UK has had bad expericances in the past using stobar and catobar arrangements. The Arrangement we have now is safe, practical and proven. Less parts to go wrong.
I'd say HMSQE as while the USS Gerald Ford is fit to fight HMSQE can be used for multipurpose it also (In my opinion) facilitates its crew better and shows a new ATC tower allowing for the bridge to be solely for navigation and operation of the carrier. And it just looks cool aswell.
Dimitri4001 I wanted to flag this but there was no option that said “uninformed commenters”. Some US carriers have Starbucks and small grocery stores in them.
Jimbosstudios Actually the number jumps to 10 QE for 3 Ford's, there is excess money for every 3 to 1 and it builds up to another if comparing the price of the 3 Ford's
I am quite surprised - and pleased - by how luxurious the QEC seems to be. Good to see that the Royal Navy takes care of its personnel. By luxurious, I do not mean to the standards of the other Queen Elizabeth.
Don't see the point? Having a national debt is extremely useful, and most national debt is towards it's citizens anyway, probably 80% of all US debt is too its citizens, and china holds a good amount of shares of the federal reserve and that stuff which is are super high 'debt' to them, more like an investment but whatever.
You sound like you have never seen a container ship, the biggest of those has a tonnage more than double the Ford at 210,000 significantly less abilities in the whole raining death down on people that have oil you want sure but when it comes to pure size they kick some ass lol. Hell at just 100,000 tonnes the Ford would fall short of the top 200 if it was a cargo ship lol.
The US technically has 20. Since only the ones with catapults are concidered Aircraft carriers, only 11 are recognized; however, if you add the amount of carriers that are around the size of the rest of the countries' aircraft carriers, which are referred to as LHDs or Amphibious assault ships by the US, then we have 20.
Small tidbit of information for anyone interested the reason the Royal Navy WON'T use Nuclear Reactor's is because they are BANNED in some territorial waters (New Zealand comes to mind) ALSO Egypt BANNED any Nuclear powered ship from using the Suez Canal in 1987 which saves the Royal navy about a month of sailing time to reach British Territorial Waters in the Indian Ocean, beside that super-carriers can only carry about a ONE months worth of Aviation Fuel at the most which means that even nuclear powered super-carriers still need to return to port to refuel every month which completely counteracts the extra 5 knots you get for using a nuclear reactor.
yes but the planes can't the Ford can only carry enough fuel to keep her air wing in the air for one month, which means that though the ford doesn't need to fuel herself she needs to refuel aviation fuel every month.
Just for information purposes: Britain was prohibited from having nuclear powered surface ships under the 1956 agreement, could be 1958 can't recall, and has nothing to do with territorial waters.
Guitar Reyes she's tiny..good ship,and unfortunately about to be in a junk yard. I saw qe not too long ago and i honestly didn't expect it to be so big lol it makes its home port look small ha
I'm ex UK military and was very proud to spend a lot of time working with U.S forces. They were really professional and I made a lot of good friends who I am still in touch with today. The comparison between the two carriers, while interesting is null and void. Our ship is the first of it's kind built around the great F-35B. The U.S has an inedible 11 carriers. There is no argument.
The next Ford Class Carriers shouldn't cost as much. The first ship in a class is always more expensive. Also I would have liked to hear about the fact that the Ford doesn't need to be refuled unlike the British ship.
21BDP21 however if that reactor melts down...oooh gg where as if an engine just breaks down... its ok also if the reactor is hit by a missile or bomb then also gg
the amount of fuel reserves is enough to out last the amount of food the ship can store so it will just be refuelled when food supplies are restocked meaning there is no more inconvenience than the us ship. also the cost of maintaining a nuclear vehicle will always outweigh the cost of fuel, not to mention the deconstruction costs of a nuclear ship are astronomical compared to a fossil fueled one.
I joined the British Army in 1989 n left in 2007 n also served with both. Ended my time as part of 16 airborne brigade, 216 airborne signal squadron. I was a JTAC. Had a GREAT time serving with US soldiers & marines. Thx for the memories guys.
No doubt the General Ford has the Advantage with more advance weaponry, Lockheed and Martin Jets, and Nuclear powered engines for swift evasive maneuvers. *But that's my opinion*
Mr Yellow, the horsepower of the beauty is far higher, and it moves much faster. Size and weight mean nothing with machines, as engines can be made more powerful than muscles can. But you’re right, neither of these are making “evasive” maneuvers
My supreme leader. We will one day have a carrier bigger than all other carriers in the world. We will be the greatest empire in the world!! Oh and you have an apointment at the buiscit factory.
I don't think the North Koreans even have the technology to make one, even if they did it'd be dead in the water. Even Russia doesn't have one that's serviceable
Top speed is classified but is significantly faster than stated. They have averaged over 40 knots based on departure and arrival times and I assumed they can go much faster.
This is coming from a Brit, but the Ford is just the better ship. Just for the sole reason that more money was invested into it. Yes, some of the equipment is experimental, but it's better equipped in general because the designers had more room to work with in terms of budget. The Elizabeth is an excellent ship but it's a little on the outdated side, possibly due to the lower budget. In Britain people are always ranting on about how the government are spending their money, so it wouldn't surprise me if the government didn't want to look like they were wasting their cash. But an extra 15-20% on the Elizabeth's budget would have done wonders.
Zeke Yeager I can tell that you take a stance of dominance, and to put it quite simply: dont rub it into their faces. I'm American myself, and thats not how we should treat our neighbors...
I don't think it's outdated. But I think the investment into the F-35B was a waste and the ramp was a poor choice. We should have just created a modern version of the harrier and used a steam catapult. More expensive but it works. Also I do agree we need more defensive armament on the carriers. Everything else is pretty much fine.
That's the problem really the QE class could of been alot better with cato bar and nuclear powerplants but budget restraints reeled all that in for cheaper alternatives.
Wayne Powlesland nuclear powered vessels are banned in some territorial waters, such as the Suez canal, which shortens journeys by weeks, meaning the US carrier has to go around entire continents in some cases, whereas the UK carrier doesn't
Obviously the US carrier packs the bigger punch...the US is quite simply the worlds greatest superpower and I would imagine has nearly as many ships as all the other navies of the world put together. However historically the UK navy is the most successful the world has ever seen and this level of experience proved itself again during the Falklands war, which at least from a naval perspective was a very real full on war. They called it a task force but it had to do everything the D-Day landings did only in far more difficult circumstances. Although it took heavy losses the Royal Navy was an absolute triumph in the Falkland's War, entirely down to the experience of the service. So I'm sure the UK carrier will do everything it's been built for and required to do in times of conflict.
@@larrybragg5379 lol , the yanks never beat the Brits . The red coats burned down the white house , and there is no points in mass killing their rebellious siblings , their own flesh and blood , so the Brits just left . Blood is always thicker than water.
@@larrybragg5379 u were given independence, Britain agreed to it lol plus the forefathers were all British-American. The revolutionary war was more of a civil war
People seem to keep latching onto the idea that Britain is somehow stronger. America is just going to be the most powerful it's obvious. We were stronger but now we are not. This is why competent Brits mock american in other ways, like how we are a 'superior' culture, I mean let's face it we can't beat slavs when it comes to culture.
Infographics show still got this massively wrong. A lot of their videos are laced with mistakes like this which makes me wonder how much information I get from them that I dont have background knowledge on is just straight up WRONG.
Well that and the Canadians don't have any neighbours anywhere near them that would be a threat. Plus the Canadians did pretty well for themselves in 2 world wars despite having a tiny peace time army, and somehow managed to defeat the US Army in the only war the two nations fought. Not too bad for some beer swilling hockey nuts.
I mean the Canadians where in both world wars from day 1, until the end (unlike the United States) so I don't think "winning the battle doesn't win the war" applies. Especially since the Canadian contribution in WW1 was more important than the American one. Anyway when the Americans crossed the border it was mostly the Canadian militia that countered them, and however you look at it, the war score is Canada 1 United States 0. As for war plan red: Everyone thought the Soviet Union could Annex Finland in a week until they actually tried it, don't put too much faith in plans that where never put to the test.
Anyone who says "World War 2 ended because the US entered" does not understand WW2. WW2 ended because of the Soviets, the Americans where a side show. And the US didn't "supply everyone with weapons," they simply sold people weapons, and only in fairly limited numbers to the USSR, where the fighting counted. You can excuse the piss poor preformance in 1812 of the US army all you like but at the end of the day the only time American and Canadian forces fought eachother the Canadian's beat the shit out of the Americans. Anything else is just "well maybe could have happened" and maybe's just don't cut it I'm sorry. As I said everyone thought the Soviets would steamroll Finland until they tried it. Conjecture and hypotheticals are, until they have been backed up with actual fighting on the ground, just that. Next I'm American Citizen so I don't feel like I need to show the US any gratitude, but keep that complex going there buddy. BTW Canada did a huge amount in WW1, notice how I was talking about both wars and specifically said "the Canadian contribution to *WW1* was more important than the American"? Learn reading comprehension. Btw the War wouldn't have dragged into the 50's. The Wehrmacht had been mortally wounded by the end of Barbarossa in 1941, and was finished after Stalingrad, from then on it was just a matter of how long the Wehrmacht could slow the Soviets, and how much of Europe would be controlled by the Red Army.
Comparing theese ships is like comparing a battleship to a destroyer it just dosent work that way. The ships are so diffrent. Also pretty sure canada does not have carriers....
I'm British and I love the USS Gerald R. Ford Supercarrier. I think it's brilliantly prepared for the future with nuclear-powered engines and it has fairly decent protection without other ships. I think the Queen Elizabeth class are a step in the right direction and am happy that the Labour government of 1997 began the R&D to replace the UK old invincible-class but I agree with what a, I believe former, captain (maybe admiral) said about the Navy and that's especially due to the austerity from the conservatives that the British Royal Navy are a laughing stock. Not long after I read that (and I believe I read it close to the time he said it) a destroyer or frigate was sent on a humanitarian mission to the Caribbean to help hurricane victims and it broke down in it's way there. Disgracefully funny, IMO. Soon the US will have 10 Ford class and I'd like to see the UK push for at least 5 supercarriers given we are island nation and the Navy (almost equally the RAF) is supposed to be our primary armed force. Unfortunately, I don't think the conservatives or Labour will do that.
It was a helicopter carrier and it was proven to be a false story on it breaking down. Please do some research before spreading false information. People like you who read tabloid newspapers and make comments on subjects they dont understand are the real problem here. They have enough problems with the UK government fisting them year after year without getting shit talked by their own country. The UK does not have the want, need or ability to operate 5 aircraft carriers. HMS QE and HMS POW are the right size for our country, the real issue is the lack of escorts, submarines and the low number of aircraft to properly use them. I would also like to mention, that even with the extreme cuts the forces have had, they are still one of the most capable European navies. Hopefully the goverment put their money where there mouth is and properly fund their vision of a global Britain with the state of the forces.
The Royal Canadian Navy does NOT have any aircraft carriers in service. The last aircraft carrier the RCN had was the HMCS Bonaventure, which was decommissioned in 1970. More to the point, the RCN is woefully under-equipped, to the point where it lacks even one destroyer, the last (the HMCS Athabaskan) having been decommissioned in 2017. At this point in time, the Royal Canadian Navy has 12 frigates, four patrol submarines, two Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 12 coast defense ships, and eight unarmed/training patrol vessels. The fact that the RCN has so few ships is made worse due to Canada being surrounded by water: the Atlantic to the east, the Pacific to the west, and the Arctic ocean to the north. For the record, this post wasn't made to insult or otherwise demean the Royal Canadian Navy. I'm in strong support of the RCN getting new ships, especially with Russia contesting the Arctic waters that're close to northern Canada. Unfortunately, the RCN isn't well-funded and hasn't been since WW2 (after which Canada had the third largest navy in the world, directly behind the United States and the United Kingdom), so while it does a great job with what little it has, it may not be enough, especially if Russia goes beyond sabre-rattling when it comes to the Arctic.
The QE is a Swiss Army knife and the Ford a machete. The UK doesn't have the defence budget to build ships to cover every role so it crams as many roles as possible into a single ship. Hence the obvious differences. At the end of the day though, they are both going to be fighting together which will be an incredible sight to see. I presume they will be going on exercises some time soon at least
The HMS is better simply because of its price for 1 ford class 3 queen elizibath can be deployed making the numbers 3x bigger and totally outnumbering that of the Gerald R Ford class
Hanby Sykes yes I agree with you their but everyone know a war is coming and if one of the carriers were sunk they could have three QE class which would be cheaper and better for the US
Like comparing apples and oranges. The UK doesn't have the budget for a Ford class carrier. But in terms of design to accommodate this budget its very impressive. The Queen Elizabeth now has the the largest compliment of 5th Generation fighters of any carrier thanks to our US allies. Rumours are the US Marines may lease or but the Prince of Wales carrier from the UK.
@@ipant1056 it’s the cooperative nature of it mate. If China hits a QEC carrier, China will have destroyed both British and American jets, killed the sailors of both nations, forcing a war with both of them.
OliOli251 It's not a fair fight to be honest, it's like having the British SBS VS the Green Berets or SAS vs Army Rangers, the SAS and Seals don't even specialize in the same things
Awww America, you could've had it by a country mile, if you just went that little bit further and had a bakery on board! Sadly you didn't though so victory to the HMS QE
Gender-neutral bathrooms, better known by their names as just 'bathrooms'. Idiotic not that they have 'gender-neutral' bathrooms, but instead that it's a mentioned item and I'm sure it's some sort of selling point in whatever info the USN hands out. Whenever you're making a ship, space is limited and thus needs to be conserved and prioritized. Placing 2 bathrooms wherever 1 bathroom is determined to be needed is obviously counterproductive to that sensible design philosophy.
The US army generals who are mostly right leaning asked for this because they said its a waste to build urinals because if they have to swap out for a female crew they would need a new boat. War is a time to manage time wisely not worry about bathrooms. They made a bathroom any crew could use, saves room on the ship and time.
The QE wins hands down! The majority of the 4,200 crew of the Ford have to put up with extensive racked berthing areas with no beer or spirits, whilst the QE's crew of 1,600 have 470 No.CARPETED Cabins (Maximum 6 sailors per Cabin) with ensuite shower rooms with an ample supply of beer and spirits. Absolutely no contest!
for the record, one of the reasons USN carriers have more crew (and need to be bigger) is the crew are single trade, RN crews are multi-task...damage control, 1st aid, fire fighting etc...
Well made video production wise but there were all sorts of facts wrong or things missed out. The Canada issue has been discussed below by others. No mention of the 9 or so amphibious assault ships that the US navy has, these are bigger than most other nations aircraft carriers. they are over twice the size of the so called carriers that are mentioned from Spain and Italy, and have been used as carriers in the so called "harrier carrier" role, where they do in fact field more planes than their Spanish or Italian counterparts or the previous 3 invincible class carrier of the British navy for that matter. They are infact even bigger than the French aircraft carrier. They should be included in this list, giving the US a total of 20 or 21 carriers. The US doesn't count them as carriers but any other nation in the world would, and they are bigger than most other nations carriers.
The American ship is bigger, has more jets and its nuclear reactor is much better than the one used in the French carrier, which are a bunch of the reactors from your nuclear submarines if I remember correctly. Essentially the French ship is just a mini-Nimitz with a less developed nuclear reactor.
SickPrid3 that's a fucked up thing to say and shows how much you don't know about history. France was really the only thing standing in the way of the Germans in WWI(during 1917) and without the Frenchs sacrifices in WW1, Britain would have had no choice but surrender(the US was a materials provider and basically ineffective for battle) and I am American, and will admit that freely. Yes the French got conquered by Germany quick during WWII but the surprise of the blitzkrieg would have overwhelmed pretty much any country during the early stages of the war. To just disregard the French like that is to disregard all the sacrifices they''ve made for the world we now take for granted.
The Queen Elizabeth Class are the most advanced aircraft carrier in the world, with one of if not the best radars to date, able to hold 70+ F-35B's and room for Wildcat and Merlin and Apache Helicopters, all being run with a smaller crew being more automatic. Plus the F-35 is a UK US designd and built jet. The Queen Elizabeth Class is not a Nuclear Power Carrier for many reasons, 1st It's Easier to go to country to country, for some country's not allowing nuclear ships in their waters, 2nd Can take more damage if hit and not having to worry about a Nuclear bomb that can destroy the hole fleet, 3rd Does not need to be in for years refuelling like a nuclear Carrier does when it's power gets to low, 4th More docks it can go to around the world for maintenance and supplies, 5th All the other ships with the Carriers are non-nuclear powered meaning they need refueling as well so might as well re-fuel the Carrier as well, with a Carrier and even a nuclear powered Carrier still needs other things being refilled from the supply ships on the move, so again might as well re-fuel while doing it.
SAS or SBS vs Navy Seals. I've seen multiple videos on these where the SAS is either first or second and Navy Seals are first or second. To be fair all of these top tens were made by Americans.
Navy seals aren't really on par with the SAS as they do completely differing roles focus more on the SBS for that there the UK's water based CT unit also perhaps the Royal marines however from watching the joint trainings the yanks do over here with us... things never tend to go the yanks way!
I don't want to be biased (considering that I am a U.S citizen), but it appears that the from the data you guys provided, the Gerald is clearly out-matching the Queen Elizabeth.
