Was the Angled Flight Deck Missed on HMS Queen Elizabeth? 

You can fly STOVL aircraft of a carrier with catabar. But you can't fly eg E2 Hawkeye from a carrier without it. So leaving cats & traps out is highly limiting for operations.

*Sweats in Falklands War*

This is why the ships are equipped with the possibility to install catobar equipment, when it is reliable enough.

@@jeromedavies2408 I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't have or use the E2 Hawkeye, so not really an issue here. Also the launch rate using Catobar is slower than the setup on the Queen Elizabeth as it doesn't have the issue of waiting for steam production to catch up, it also causes less damage to airframes due to stress.

@@Skullet That's sort of the point. The E2 Hawkeye cant fly off QE so airborne radar range is severely limited.

The US DOD, wanted us to put the magnetic catapult system, but we didn't.

their engines produce no steam at all., they are electric motors

Oh I like that, nobody got it I think I did, making tea us Brits do make a lot of tea we could run a carrier with our left over steam from tea making lol. Us Brits have got a good sense of humour even about ourselves.

good one good sir!

You had to be racist to us Brits didn't you

Wow I guess it was amazing

Did u see it in liverpool docked up before it set sail??

I did

@@the_unknown7645 No I saw it in Cornwall near Godrevy Lighthouse.

@@imben77 do you want a booh o WOOAH?

well, they are *technically* not 'aircraft carriers'.

@@kmmediafactory The HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes (aka Invisible and Herpes) technically weren't aircraft carriers either, they were "through-deck cruisers". Technically.

@@robertsneddon731 huh. I actually though they were carrier classified. I guess it was *not what I think*

Those "destroyers" are now being retrofitted into being true carriers to accommodate F-35s if I recall correctly

After the refit, the Izumo class will be reclassified from Helicopter Destroyers to Multipurpose Destroyers. So still not carriers, lol.

@Bob Wattersif we go back to 1945 and the 20 years after that the US would be guilty of the same thing.

@Bob Watters Nuclear would have been more expensive and would have caused a bunch of other issues, like not being able to dock in certain countries or indeed any of our own ports besides Faslane and Devonport. Its a lot of hassle for no real advantage, even the US carriers need to take on aviation fuel while at sea, the UK carriers simply refuel at the same time as taking on aviation fuel so a nuclear reactor doesn't offer much advantage here.

​@Bob Watters In what way are they significantly more capable?

@Bob Watters how exactly are they "more capable" then?

I'm wondering if a combination of ramp and angled deck would be feasible. It would have to be big enough to have two "runways", one with the ramp and the front and another angled one behind it. The frontal one would only be used for launch and the angled could do both. You get the benefit of parallel start capability and are able to launch heavier planes. And if the stern is wide enough it could even allow for parallel landing there.

Bruh

i wont like its at 69

“Instead of normal methods, they will be using a fucking gun”

@@chrizonlozanotventure7466 you can now :)

Put down to the ground floor flat

Realy?

yeah c130 takeoff on a US supercarrier was done in this way

@@Tenohekabanzai but isnt kinda dumb use rocket booster in fighters?

@@Karedu. Not for fighters, for cargo planes

@@gregc9344 use the same boosters they used for the c-130 and make them so they can drop straight after TO for the carrier to pick up and reuse then Voila

I hope one of the new America class gets named BHR as well.

Lmao

Nice. The reason the landing profile he mentioned is used is because of the Harrier. They don't do well hovering slowly over one chunk of deck, because they can potentially ingest their own exhaust gases and flame out... so they do all the complicated hovering next to the landing spot, matching velocities and altitude, etc, with a lot of empty air beneath them, and then slip over the deck and shut it down. And for that landing profile, a straight deck is probably preferred, since you don't have to worry as much about where the edge of the flight deck is, since it's pretty much a constant instead of tapering.

@@Tomyironmane 👍

@@Tomyironmane the main reason for Harrier Rolling Landings was so weaponry didn't have to be dropped in the sea when returning with any

@@Tomyironmane the Americans don’t land like the brits. They may start though.

👍harrier the greatest advancement in fighter plane ever imo

It would have looked like the french variant sadly it didn’t came to life

Emals still isn't reliable enough to be useful, it nearly there but not quite, still projected to hold up the Gerald R Ford by a couple more years..

@@Markus117d True, but my point is that its usefulness isn't the main reason they never converted the QE.

The reason why EMALs weren’t used on the HMS QE II carriers are rather simple….. Power plant capacity. A nuclear vessel can do that easy, a Diesel Turbine, not so much.

@@smoketinytom that's true, but the QE class was designed with spare generating capacity, how much i don't know, but as they were thinking of installing an emals style system at some point during the ships service life, it's reasonable to expect enough capacity to run at least a small system 🤔

First rule of show business, Make it look easy.

Famous last words?

@@woodonfire7406 pull up ! pull up !

@@woodonfire7406 terrain ahead, terrain terrain pull up, pull up, pull up

That says a lot about the people involved and their training.

What’s face and what’s flexy barrier hug method?

Pieter-Bas Hoogsteen I think Face is how the intake looks. The barrier hug being the carrier emergency landing barrier, when they can’t use the hook.

@@yolkiandeji7649 thanks

I am a vietnamese and are you offense our country?

@@builuuquanghuy4144 I don’t think he meant it in a way to insult you. It’s better if you not take it personally even if you don’t find the joke funny.

It's not what you think

if they retro fit though they will have to replace the air wing for each carrier no small cost there.

@@mawdeeps7691 true, but if the refit happens in 20-25 years (given a 50 year life span for the carrier that doesn't seem unreasonable) then it is entirely possible that new aircraft will be required regardless, for example 6th generation fighter, or a move to combat UAV's, at which point the cost doesn't matter.

@@matthewshedlock70carrier based tempest, maybe? Pretty please, BAE lol

@@mawdeeps7691 it's not like we have fully committed to F-35B. We have 32 currently out of 80 planned. We could easily make the B models air force only. Besides, who said that a design couldn't be made that would integrate both types, since a CATOBAR carrier operates helos anyway, so the VTOL jets could follow the same landing procedures as them

Japans carriers are still under going conversion and South Korea has not laid down any stool carriers yet also Australia is just using there’s for heli’s and just left the ramp because it would have cost more to remove.

India has two

@@qwill8254 India's carriers are STOBAR, not STOVL I believe.

@@Peterincan But it can still perform that role

@@skylerlopez8383 Helicopters are also considered as “aircraft”... Particularly ROTARY WING aircraft... Any aerial vehicle, manned or unmanned, are considered as “aircraft”... Which means that ALL helicopter carriers are also considered as aircraft carriers... Whether they’re dedicated helicopter carriers or amphibous assault ships, they can be considered as “aircraft carriers” because they’re carrying helicopters, which is a type of rotary wing AIRCRAFT... But using my logic, even a cruiser or a destroyer or a frigate equipped wirh helicopter decks can also be considered as “aircraft carriers” because they can carry helicopters, which are again, a type of aircraft, but they’re an exception... They’re not classified as aircraft carriers because they’re not really designed or specialized for carrying helicopters, they just have the ability to do so... So what I’m trying to say is not all ships with the capability to carry aircraft can be considered as aircraft carriers, only ships that are designed and specialized for aircraft carrying operations can be considered as aircraft carriers... And that includes dedicated helicopter carriers and amphibous assault ships... Its not really a requirement for them to have the ability to carry fixed wing aircraft to be considered as aircraft carriers, as long as they can carry aircraft and they are designed to carry aircraft, may it be rotary wing or fix wing or whatever type of aircraft, they are aircraft carriers... Period...

@@thekraken4548 The Hawker Siddeley Harrier does it too.

F-35s are overpriced

@@ramal5708 False, F-35A Block 3F Lot 14's per unit cost is under $79 million USD.

@@valenrn8657 but they're using F-35Bs and costs 36 grand per hour

@@ramal5708 The cost per hour to fly the F35 is less than a f15. how is the F35 expensive? F15-Ex 88 million F35 - 77 million Cost per hour to fly: Air Force Numbers: F-15C $22,489 F15D $21,745 F15e $17,408 F22 $40,385 F35A $16,952 So the F35 is cheaper to buy, and cost less per hour to fly. Link and source for above per hour numbers: Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2020 From comptroller_defense_gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2020/ Replace _ characters into . character for the web link.

Makes sense. I assume it would require a lot of skill to do it, probably more skill than a regular vertical landing, but Harrier pilots could probably do it without problem.

its amazing to see how huge the ships are as they leave Portsmouth next to the old buildings at the mouth of the port

Who is the biggest rival?

@@jaybanks6815 Southampton. Their sponsor was Emirates and the tower was supposed to have been painted in their team colours

Lol. I think it is just our good ol' 🇬🇧 humour! I would live to see HMS QE in the metal. Its must look so majestic.

The US has both kinds. A catapult is way simpler than VTOL. If you lose the catapult you don't lose the ability to launch you lose payload and/or range.

@@yizeverienametaken The F35Bs aren't used for vertical take off though, they use a rolling take off using the ski ramp that never breaks down or needs constant maintenance. Yeah, a clean F/A18 could take off without a catapult give the right exacting conditions but what would be the point apart from maybe flying to an airbase for an overhaul or something?

@randomguy9777 It will, but not for F-35s. More likely for large drones, which is something that the Royal Navy is currently looking into. The likely plans for the Royal Navy will be to operate 12-24 F35s on a carrier and make up the numbers with a loyal-wingman type drone. They're also looking at drones for AEW to replace Crowsnest and also for air to air refuelling.

@randomguy9777 They are, yes. The RN seems very keen to go down the drone route, however, so likely looking at unmanned solutions for the QE class carriers. I'm interested to see what they come up with.

@randomguy9777 Maybe, but EMAL is both unreliable at the moment, and too expensive. The only Navy with enough Carriers that can afford to experiment with EMAL is the USN. The QE's cannot use steam operated CATOBAR, so EMAL is literally the only option. The RN cannot afford to experiment, it has 2 Carriers, the US has what, 10 Fleet Carriers? Using one as a test platform for EMAL is no big deal for the USN, but for the RN if it is unreliable it takes one of their most powerful ships out of service.... So yes, while I agree, Its not going to happen until EMAL comes of age.

F-35B is not catapult compatible

@@kellywu4061 *The F-35B does not need catapults to perform short takeoffs as it uses downwards thrust to performs such measures.

You can also land a STOVL aircraft by a rolling landing as seen in the video, so no need to ditch ordnance.

Getting rid of ammo before landing was one of the many reasons they retired the F-14.

He forgot to mention one thing. In a raging war, you could imagine the enemy's initial targets would include airports and long strips of land to prevent conventional enemy aircraft from taking-off and joining the fight. Having combat aircraft that can take-off and land vertically and still be capable of mach flight would be a very big asset in such a scenario. They wouldn't need the conventional, long airstrips to be combat-ready and thus be more usable in protecting the airspace. What exactly is the use of a faster and longer-range aircraft if it is stuck on land, unable to take-off? VSTOL aircraft can practically join the fight from everywhere and that is the reason why I think it is the most ideal of the three F-35s.

Yeah I was missing a mention to the Canberra class based on the Spanish design. Didn't Norway also procure one of the same type?

Yeah but Australian has no plane that can take off from it, only Helicopters.

No, it wasn’t mentioned because they don’t have have any.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe purpose built dogfighters will be a good deal more maneuverable than any standard aircraft that employs VIFFing. In fact I believe the Harrier jump jet actually has relatively poor maneuverability

@@DonutHolestien still spanked the argies tho 🤣

@@DonutHolestien Yes, that's true, however newer fighters are built for beyond-visual-range engagements with missiles, not pure maneuverability, so the Harrier would be more on an even footing in a dogfight without employing VIFFing. The Sea Harrier FRS.1 and Harrier GR.3 were extremely successful in the Falklands War, against Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages, Pucaras, armed T-34Cs, and helicopters. Their biggest weaknesses were their small numbers, and inadequate airborne early warning. Neither of these is really the fault of the Harrier itself.

@@sebsjunkyard Alright, good to know!

The Harrier is one of those truly unique planes that will forever be iconic, like the Spitfire, Fokker Triplane, or F4 Phantom. They're obsolete now but they occupied a unique place in the history of aviation and it's awesome to see the spirit of the Harrier live on in the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

The British invented aircraft carriers full stop…

And now in the present their navy is weaker than the JMSDF.

@@toiletpapermasksociety3588 And the UK has less coastal waters than Japan…

@@toiletpapermasksociety3588 Ironic

@@allangibson2408 UK also has a weaker air force, at least on paper.

Its actually named after queen elizabeth battleships, named after queen elizabeth the 1st.

QE II is a cruise liner, not a warship.

I never knew passenger liners got f35s in them lmao

There was nothing balanced about this so many things missing and mistakes

@@dazuk2630 Missing, yep. Mistakes? Name them.

Also: Pykrete

@@Baconsandwich47 you take some wood, you take some ice, you get Pykrete

List of things no one asked. Who made the angled flight deck who made the steam catapult who made landing assistance who came up with the Aircraft carrier

@@G-Lew american fat

none of those technologies were invented by the UK, it was german and american designs

CATOBAR aircraft still out range and out carry ramp launched aircraft by a significant amount so that isn't an "advantage". The USN operates the largest naval airforce on the planet so they don't need help from the USAF (the largest airforce on the planet) The UK isn't even in the top ten in number of aircraft the USN dwarfs the UK's entire air arm both RAF and Fleet. Once again, not an advantage. CATOBAR carriers can operate with a deck pitching 30' look up "PBS:Carrier-Landing On A Pitching Deck PT 1". Show us some video of a ramp carrier operating in a worse sea state or once again not really an advantage.

There is no need for USAF aircraft to operate fro USN carriers; the USAF is the world's largest Air Force, and the 3rd largest is the US Navy; we have enough air wings in the Navy such that there would never be any need to operate Air Force assets from Carriers.

@@JoeBLOWFHB Yes it is, 1,100 miles over 800 and that's with peace time fuel reserves and no SRVL landings for the C over the B. And you're completely missing the point with USAF. Why would we care about how many aircraft a foreign military has? STOVL Carriers and aircraft are better suited to operating at sea, the aircraft are more flexible, cheaper to maintain due to lighter landings. There's all sorts of advantages. Better sortie rates for instance, they wipe the floor with the Ford class, they barely function. As for cost comparison, no contest, you could have 3 or 4 instead of a 4, quadrupling sortie rate while still reducing crew numbers. I was just talking STOVL advantages, the ships themselves compared to other navies? No contest.

@@devobronc Completely missing the point. I don't care how many planes USAF has. Only STOVL Carriers came do this. The Americans and the French are stuck with two separate air fleets, expensive and redundant.

@@MostlyPennyCat The Harrier has been retired for over a decade in the UK and the UK has vacillated on the pitiful number of F-35B'S they plan to inventory so it doesn't matter that in the good old days the RAF and Fleet air arms could share planes because they won't be doing that in the future. NOT AN ADVANTAGE! You were the one saying we'd never see the USN and USAF sharing planes ...well neither will the RAF and Fleet that ship has sailed. My point is our Navy isn't so under inventoried that we would ever need to share aircraft with the Air Force if the Navy wanted to share planes they'd do it with the Marines who still operate the Harrier along with the F 35B but they don't because it's NOT AN ADVANTAGE. If STOVL carriers and planes were "better suited" the USN wouldn't be wasting their time and money on an inferior product they'd just put ramps on our LHA's, triple their number and spend the savings on hookers and alcohol. The Ford class is a totally new carrier operating a totally new aircraft STOVL sortie rates are total shit compared to the Nimitz class which is still the vast majority of the USN fleet. Between 1966-1967 the USS Enterprise launched 14,000 sorties (look up "Command and Control of Air Operations in the Vietnam War") give me a citation where a STOVL carrier exceeded that number... I'lll wait...actually no I won't because no STOVL carrier ever launched an average of 38 sorties a day for one year. Hell their sortie rates are total shit compared to a 66 year old Forrestal class. Counting pennies is for nations that can't afford to keep their nuclear triad in service and need to buy their sole nuclear delivery system from another country. The UK's military across the board has been in steady decline for a decade so all those cost savings are a necessity NOT AN ADVANTAGE!

And what happens when they decide which one is the most effective? Or rather, what happens if they decide that the STOVL configuration is more effective? Just convert the one they changed to CATOBAR back to STOVL & waste all that money? And they would need a whole carrier's worth of F-35Cs too... So just to perform that test, they would need a £2 bn conversion to CATOBAR and £2.5 bn worth of new aircraft just for the test.

Or make one with catapults for heavier aircraft to run ground suppression and cas while the other stay the same a focuses on air dominance and CAP

@@needanewname141 the reason the UK wanted 2 carriers, not just one like France is that the availability of ships means that most of the time only 1 will be ready to go. And if they did get to operate together, you would have planes that could only work from 1 of the carriers. Plus operating & maintaining multiple types of aircraft is more expensive (even if they're quite similar) than a uniform fleet.

@@sergarlantyrell7847 They are still basically useless tools in the modern era, given the constant refueling, limited number of aircraft, and inferior planes. Basically, the QE & PoW are equivalent to Air-Wing-Loaded US Assault Deck ships. Similar numbers of aircraft; same aircraft complement. For what was spent, the UK didn't do any better than a US Marine Assault Ship, configured for aircraft-fleet-support. PS, our Assault Ships are a hella lot cheaper.

@@devobronc As in the carriers or the aircraft are useless? If you mean the STOVL aircraft, consider that while the F-35B has 25% less range (combat radius) than the F-35C, it still has 30% more range than the Super Hornet. The B version only has 0.5 lower G-tolerance (0.6 less than the Super Hornet), but a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. And the main drawback with regards to payload is that the 2,000 lb bunker buster bombs have to be carried externally, but since the Royal Navy has never carried such a weapon, and the trend is towards smaller, but more numerous and more precise stand-off weapons anyway, this isn't a big loss. So while slightly worse than the F-35C (which if you care to think of it that way, is just an inferior version of the F-35A), it's still better than every other carrier-based aircraft in the world. If you meant the carriers themselves, the Queen Elizabeth class is far better as an aircraft carrier than an America class, which is already about 1.5 to 2x the size of most Assault ships. And they're not a "hella lot cheaper", they're just 35% cheaper than the QEs (AND the development is split between more ships). And for that they can carry up to 20 F-35Bs, and even then it's quite the squeeze. The QEs can take around double that with plenty of room to spare so they can turn the aircraft around far quicker and generate far more sorties per day (110, which is not far off a Nimitz class). Sorry, but "Constant refuelling", seriously? Do you say that your Arleigh Burke class is "useless" because it has to refuel "constantly" (in fact it has less than half the range of a QE class)? Or are the Nimitz class "useless" because they have to refuel frequently with aviation fuel? The QEs hold more jet fuel per aircraft than do the Nimitz class, so both will have to refuel every few days during combat, nuclear-powered or not. And this dreaded refuelling, which is done while underway (or during stopovers at friendly ports during peacetime) only takes about 2 hrs to fully fill up on bunker fuel for the ship. But they're topped off every few days so the ship never has less than 75% fuel on board, just in case, so about 1/2 hr every few days. Considering the entire escort fleet also has to be refuelled every few days anyway, 1 more ship isn't a massive deal. And again, as it can all be done while underway, so mostly not losing any time. Compare that to nuclear refuelling which only has to be done every 20-25 years or so, but can take 2 or 3 years of the ship being in drydock and completely unavailable for service. Given that a carrier is typically deployed just 30% of the time, over the 25 year refuelling cycle of a nuclear-powered carrier, a Queen Elizabeth class could expect to be refuelling for just over 900 hrs (about 38 days worth)... compared to a few YEARS for a nuclear carrier, PLUS the time taken to refuel the aviation fuel tanks. When you have 10 carriers, you can afford to wait that long, but not if you only have 2 or 3.

Long live The King!

Well, our 6th gen won't have vertical take off and landing so having an Emals is inevitable. It just might come a lot earlier since our F 35Bs have been falling out of the sky a bit too much so we might have to get 4.5 gen aircrafts to replace them.

Britain is developing its own aircraft for the next generation, so it will depend on that.

@@olsenfernandes3634 We lost one.

@@mandowarrior123 It is ridiculous for us (Britain) to think we can go back to developing an aircraft on our own, whether military or civilian. It's too expensive these days.

The nice thign about EMALS is that its way less demanding in space them steam catapults, which need a complex boiler/tank/etc system, even under nuclear power. So it might be feasable to upgrade.

The advantages are a smaller, cheaper ship with less maintenance. But then you have a more expensive aircraft with more maintenance and/or less capability. You also limit the range of the ship because it can only use helicopters for resupply and airborne early warning. That said, now every amphibious assault ship can be its own carrier. That is the biggest advantage in my opinion. You might even be able to revive the carrier submarine concept, as unlikely as that is.

@@dude6935 The Royal Navy showed big advantages of the Harrier over the Mirage jet in the Falklands war. After witch the UK overtook France in arms sales.

@@dude6935 The QEC carriers ant small and were built for the F35 witch requires a bigger ship than the previous Invincible class ships.

@@MrRichymil The QE class carriers are not small. They are among the largest non-nuclear carriers in the world, if not *the* largest. The US amphibious assault carriers will operate the F35b at only 60% of the displacement. Not knocking the QEC. Just saying is all.

It wasn't a war it was a conflict

That was/is the entry-level requirement for the old Harriers anyway so the RN just needs to maintain its selection process.

Aircraft carriers, not aircraft.

you are right Japan has 2 STOVL aircraft destroyes, not carriers (they are basiclly carriers but re classified as destroyes). But in 2006 Thailand removed is Harrivers from its carrier, which makes it just a helicopter carrier.

@@rancor4690 yes definitely NOT carriers.. if anyone asks.

@@TheWebstaff aircraft carriers? Pffft you blind m8 this is a multirole Destroyer

@@rancor4690 bro the thai carrier is just an overpriced excursion boat for the royal family

wow, you truly are a comedian

😆😆😆

@Evan Nicholson a lot further than 7 miles.

Absolutely old chap, you can’t expect a navy to operate without tea 😜🇬🇧

And scones or hot buttered crumpets After all we are English and can't be seen to let the niceties of life go to one side just because there's a war on Just not done chaps 😉

No we'd just have bought all F35Cs

Diet to look good? US carriers using their catapult system and many different aircrafts. Meaning they'll be able to use their large varity for many uses. The Queen didn't maintain a healthy diet, so she's more thin rather then looking good. The only aircraft carriers that look good is the angled ones.

@@daisukekazumi2399 plenty of places will welcome her. Us carriers being nuclear are banned from many many ports.

@@TheWebstaff Not a problem, with three million gallons of fuel for its planes and escorts. The Supply ships, C-2s, and CV-22s, the US Navy has logistics down to a science.

@@daisukekazumi2399 the angled shape comes mostly from the top runway that sticks out from the sides. You could easily refit extra platforms on the sides for point-defense systems and ofc fit a new runway itself.

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT You talk about soon to be out of service. But they've been in service and been in effective service for a good while, providing increased effectivity. Taxes? The US economy is much stronger than the UK's. We don't worry about that.

But wait till you see the hourly flying operating costs right now it's still 36 grand per hour.

@Alenas Kvasninas But the Royal Navy made a bad, knee jerk decision, to give up on EMALS, and go back to the ski-jump carrier style they had used with Harriers. This "cost saving" measure means that the Royal Navy's very costly pair of new aircraft carriers will be of limited utility in future conflicts. The F-35B's more limited range will force the ships to operate in closer proximity to the enemy's defenses.

They were bought as is from Spain and already had the jump, it would’ve cost a lot of money to remove the jumps so the government left them on even though they have no intention of carrying any aircraft other than helis on them. They could be modified to allow for F35Bs to land and take off from them (we don’t have F35Bs, we have F35s but the ones we have are all going to be F35As) but that would require strengthening the jump and coating the flight deck in a stronger coating, which would be pretty expensive. So it’s possible for them to launch and receive F35Bs but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it happen, for now it’s only choppers on the Canberra class.

The canberaa class is a landing helicopter dock

@@yookk7143 bugger off

@@yookk7143 Gulag

Its a bit too small to operate F35B effectively. Since its only around 20000ton. The U.S Wasp and America class LHD are both around 40000ton.

But some poeple cannot read so they watch videos 🤠🌞😁😁

It's still in service with the USMC, Spain and Italy.

The Harrier and its successor, the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B has a long and storied history of crashes and dead pilots. It was an aircraft compromised in many ways by its STOL engineering and the limits of 1960s technology. It could the one thing other aircraft couldn't do and that was enough to make it useful despite the cost in aircraft and lives.

On the bright side, civilians can now legally purchase the Harrier.

That's wrong on so many different levels.

You've clearly never seen the Gerald Ford.

"Best ship in terms of design." No its not.

@@goosenuggets9693 i love gered ford but Uk battleship looks looks better my opinion Here my points First two stations atop of ship and a hill make jets to fly easier

The "hill" is because they don't have catapults. They don't make anything fly netter, cats are needed to launch planes armed at land based aircraft level. Without the catapult, the planes of an aircraft carrier are weaker in a sense. Two islands is a novel idea, but the US naval fleet has no need for it as every ship can tie their systems together, sharing all data and inputs. Objectively the HMS carriers are worse in almost every way, not even going to mention fuel needs and operational abilities. That being said, you can still claim it looks better. I can't say you're wrong lol, that's opinion.

You're not supposed to say that, that defense budget has to be wasted on something What if they had a war and nobody turned up because it was a wet miserable Wednesday afternoon, or worse one of those long drawn out Sunday afternoons from the 70's when all of the shops used to be shut and the only thing you had to look forward to was bath night because it was school the next day

Too bad we live on Earth instead of a dreamlike paradise.

But no one has any questions, except for WHEN IS THE FACE REVEAL?!

@@NotWhatYouThink Well I have questions: 1. What lead you to this ? 2. How do you have sthis much knowledge ? 3. Do you like this job ?

@@NotWhatYouThink that is quite sad, well I think people do have questions but no-one sees they're comment so you don't see them.

I mean this in the nicest possible way

We can’t read all the comments, but we do read a lot of them. Maybe I’ll send a community post at some point, asking people for their questions for a Q&A video

Or the second would go in after the first is done. The same way the Nimitz carriers got retrofittet.

I'm sure if needs be they'll refit both at separate times just to keep them operational in some capacity

@@mrcaboosevg6089 Yes that is a big possibility. They would also have to fit jet blast deflectors and either the on board landing sights or have some sort of helmet based landing assist thing. A lot of work.

@@nottmfunguy Luckily we have two so it's not a serious problem. If we need both carriers to fight at the same time we'd probably be in some serious shit anyway

@@mrcaboosevg6089 The likelihood of that happening is very small. However as I remember the RN nearly got caught out with carrier numbers before when the Falklands kicked off. Before then we only had one strike carrier operating and that was the old Ark Royal, but it was a more capable ship, even by todays carriers standards.

They use EMCAT for drones but that as well as ICCALS (chemical fuel powered catapult, burn fuel, makes steam, all inside the cylinder system) were forced out to guarantee a contract win for EMALS because 'murica I guess?

@@MostlyPennyCat Tories don't like building things if they can just buy stuff from America and get their 5% slice of the pie. No doubt the contractor tasked with purchasing and fitting the new system is owned by the cousin of the defence secretary, who both went to Eton and then business school.

The video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aU0P0pQQ6vI.html

yes and no, if your VTOL is maintenance-intensive like F35 I don't see it operating from open fields in the middle of a forest or on motorways or any place where full maintenance infrastructure is not available.

fighter planes don't need long strips of land to take off and land

That was the idea they had back in the cold war, and many VTOL fighter jets were in development as a result: The Dassault BALZAC, the British Harrier, the soviet Yak-38, etc. But it's still easier to build a makeshift runway for conventional fighters than it is to maintain VTOL fighters, and close-in weapons systems (CIWS) make air bases reasonably secure against air threats.

Who would that imagined enemy be that could destroy all British air strips?

@@TorianTammas Well, given that majority of all british typhoons are kept in just 2 air bases, destroying those 2 won't be such a big task. And yes, russia is capable of destroying those bases lmao.

Thanks bro, you too!

What a 🇬🇧 hero!

Not by environmentalists around the world they haven't. Did you see the amount of crap those old Soviet era carriers were belching out in the video? man those things are a floating health hazard 😂

@Bob Watters Yes but if you have a CATOBAR ship you will take CATOBAR aircraft and then you have the problems I mentioned. Having a STOVL ship forces you to have STOVL aircraft.

@Bob Watters You are missing my point.

@Bob Watters I made it in my original post.

@Bob Watters Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but I tried my best. Sorry you can't understand it.

But you don't accelerate trains from zero to 160 mph in two seconds, over a distance of 250 feet, then release them from the track so they can fly away cleanly without getting hung up. I think it's a bit more complicated than you're suggesting 😉

@@lukedogwalker so basically it's not what you think

You can, but its limited. The Rissian and chinese cartiers have 2 launch areas 1 on the right and left the one on the left does indeed cross the landing area but is also ment for more heavely armed planes, while the right side is shorter and is not crossing the landing area, but no matter what you rarely launch and recover planes at the same time from carriers. But it is possible maybe not from the indian carrier due to its smaller size but thats a minor detail

@@flakeren2060 I stand corrected sir...

@@richardprice7763 my plesure fellow gentlemen

Also imagine the stress and logistics of the flight control crew in handling landings and take off at the same time

I’m not too upset about it because our navy still has a large amount of strength take the falklands war as an example.

I can definitely see where you guys are coming from. Both are very good points. There is certainly a lot to be proud of. I'm glad you guys saw my question for what it was and not how it could have been misread. I'm well aware that the Royal Navy is very much a formidable force with dedicated and well trained soldiers in its employ. I mainly was speaking to just how insanely massive the Royal Navy used to be. That said, I guess that was required given the incredible size of the British Empire in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Really appreciate you guys entering my question and giving some perspective on the matter.

Not really. The US had a small navy for the longest time, it didn't become large until the nation was pulled into two world wars and two cold wars. Plus when you have both Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and Navy, in general, is considered critical. Heck much like the Army the Navy is directly part of the US Constitution. So big or small, the US has to have one.

One of the few navies in the world that has truly global reach. A "blue-water" navy still. Our subs and AA destroyers are best in the world for their roles. Sure we are smaller now, but we can deploy a carrier strike group anywhere. There was no NATO when Britannia ruled the waves. We dont need as many ships now. We can deploy with allies and have allies deeply with our big assets like CSG21 has proved

@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT I'm going on a limb here and ask. Are you British?