Why QE Carriers are Considered a PART-TIME Fleet 

One carrier is no carrier. These ships need a lot of time in port for maintenance and such. With two carriers, you can always have one operational.

I feel like telling workers, "Hey this thing you are working on is going to get mothballed the second you are done with it" is not the best way to have them put in their best work.

It comes down to so few ships being produced by the UK these days that the shipyards no longer have the experience or quality control necessary 😞

The Zumwalt class, the Independence class, the Freedom class, the Ford class, etc all have had serious sad problems. This is what happens with first-in-class.

A quick fact here, when we sent the 2 carriers to the south Atlantic for the Falklands conflict, 1 carrier had only half power available due to an engine problem, but it still did it's job, both as a show of force and operationally as a carrier and sending only 1 fully working carrier would of been a deadly mistake. The Prince of Wales may be suffering now but the problems will be sorted, better we find her flaws now rather than finding them in troubled times of war

It's even more fitting when you consider that the WWII Battleship Prince of Wales was also unlucky enough to be sunk 3 days after Pearl Harbor after being transfered to the pacific.

It’s sad to see the state of the British army and hard to think it was once the most feared military power in the world.

there are reasons for some of the troubles these ships have, we do not have any manufacturing industries left in the UK. there used to be a vast pool of experienced engineers and tradesmen that the warship builders could call on but which have now gone. by far the biggest problem is the politicians, who are simply clueless. they couldn`t make their minds up whether these carriers would have fixed wing or stol aircraft, each time they changed their minds it cost millions.

I wonder if some of those technical problems are due to the shipyard going "If they're scrapping this one as soon as we're finished with it, why should we bring our A game? Just rush those pipe weldings."

If a country wants to maintain its capability to build its own armaments, it must build them continuously, regardless of current needs. It's simply the cost of sitting at the table.

Unbelievable that the second aircraft carrier has all the problems that should have been sorted after the first build.

With the UK's tradition of maritime power, I would hope that the UK could muster at least two reliable carriers, even if they are ski jump style decks. Thailand has one.

Prince of Wales: "No one wants me..." Kuznetsov: "END THIS LIFE OF PAIN!!!"

I'm now 74 , every defense purchase on any large program always stirs the media with the same story saying another white elephant purchase, I've witnessed this all my life, they mostly turn out to be wrong and 10 years down the track they start to come out with positive articles saying at the time of purchase they thought this would be waste we cannot afford.

I kinda feel sad for the name "Prince of Wales" Last name-holder was forced into her first deployment with kinks being worked out on the way to battle, only for her to be crippled by Bismarck Then she was sent out to face the Japanese and suffered a 1-in-a-million hit that doomed her and her crew

Fun fact about HMS Hermes aircraft carrier: It was sold to India in 1986 after serving in the Falklands War. It was recommissioned and remained in service with the Indian Navy as INS Viraat until 2017 as its second ever AC.

Russian Navy: "god I wish that were me"

10:00 at this point you can see both aircraft carriers and also, just below, Admiral Nelson’s HMS Victory circa 1805.

Outstanding analysis and scope. Thanks

Very truthful and well presented video. Excellent narration.

Imagine how stupid the UK government is to think they only need "one".

All these issues really made me appreciate how hard it must be to maintain 11 or 12 carriers.

Very good information! Brazil thanks for the Ocean!

Governments never hold contractors accountable for this sort of thing. They just pay the contract then sign another contract to fix the problems from the first contact It doesn't matter what department of the government it is. I've seen it first hand many many times.

I always thought it was good to have a spare Carrier, for when the first needs maintenance or otherwise gets grounded. Both the French and Russians have being caught out by this. Just seems like common sense to me?

I kinda feel like they shouldn't have retired their remaining Harriers about a decade ago, just downsized it to maybe 20 of them while keeping the rest in reserve for parts, while waiting for the replacement F35s to arrive. For the wars of the last decades Harriers would've been perfectly adequate still, and they'd have no problem operating from any size carrier platform.

Although mentioned, carriers are “only” the central point of a carrier strike group. That means that several ships must operate simultaneously with the carrier. They also have their OWN maintenance-cycles. My last (+related) point is staffing. QE2 was not ready to deploy into the late-2023 Middle East conflict-zone because they had insufficient staffing on ships of its strike group.

There are rumours it would be sold to Turkey and UK chief of staff went there recently

An extra carrier you don't think you need is a pretty nice problem to have.

This ship was troubled because it was produced with problems but it will make it through.

Considering that all mechanical things wear down with use.. having a spare is always handy.

All new vessels have teething troubles. These are all sorted out now. Every country has issues with all new vessels. you learn as you move along.

There was a proposal to rename HMS Prince of Wales to Ark Royal. The prince at the time was even ok with it. But in the end, the Royal Navy decided to keep the name it

This makes me really sad as someone who sees this in Portsmouth at times when I visit. it feels like we're being taunted by our government and their constant cuts. No wonder Russian bombers seem to be flying close, they aren't scared

the problem with the carrier is not the carrier itself but the lack of escort carrier airwing and carrier crew.

I think people forget that the Queen Elizabeth Class are the biggest ships ever built for the RN, period. These Ships also carry some of the most modern and technologically advanced systems in the world, trying to impliment brand new systems on huge, brand new hull is bound to present issues that wouldnt otherwise be seen on say the Type 23s, a much older and smaller hull form. Issues are bound to occure on a set of ships never before seen in the RN, Its also worth noting, that the QECs are young ships, some of the newest ships in service not many years old, these issues will be ironed out as they get older and more mature

That is a good ship , great that the UK has two aircraft carriers

There will come a day in the not to distant future when the British Government will be glad they ordered 2 of these for the Royal Navy. It may be an inconvenience for them right now but they will one day take comfort in the the fact they have 2 of them.

The problems with the POW probably reflect a lack of funding and attention--notice that the problems were attributed to carelessness and poor maintenance, not the type of new tech problems that plagued the Ford class. The ex-Soviet carriers were all too old and had fundamental design problems and other defects, so it's no a wonder they experienced problems. As to the 2 ships, it's probably a combination of lack of funding for a 3rd or more carrier and the understanding that 1 carrier won't get the job done. As it is, no matter how many carriers UK has, if it doesn't have the funds to adequately maintain or arm them (e.g., not having enough F35s or munitions), then their utility will be drastically reduced.

I think this is the best video you've produced to date - superb. More analyses like this, please!!!

The comment at 4:18 is incorrect and didn't take into account the already released UK Spring 2023 budget. The British government intends to raise it's defence spending by £11bn pounds, much more than the £700m which is reported in the video. This was reported in British media on 15 Mar, yet as this video wasn't released until 24 Mar, I am therefore surprised it was not updated to reflect the recent such a major pronouncement (UK budget are always widely reported domestically) and nullifies a major portion of this video's assessment.

I worked on the construction of this carrier, its the first I ever heard such a story!!

You dont need planes for both carriers, since 1 is active and 1 in port, why would you need the airwings in port?

Although our armed forces have dramatically declined in recent years we still have one of the largest defence budget's in the world. Most of this goes into maintaining our submarine fleet, there is no need for mass armies or tank regiments as we are part of NATO, if one member state is attacked it would be like attacking them all.

There is a very good reason why the PoW has a propeller problem. Its just evident in the name, its predecessor got sunk after the props were struck. QE is doing well because its predecessor did extremely well and tons of decorations./s

FYI the RFA has 4 Tide class tankers for resupply, not 1 like the video claims. They entered service starting in 2017 with a displacement of 39k tons.

One carrier is of little use when it’s refitting, we badly need two if not three carriers if we are to punch our alleged weight as a world power.

dude that starting analogy is crazy ngl

Very enlightening to know how all countries that build aircraft carriers have issues with them after they have been built .

one thing every RU-vidr misses out - the UK government at the time paid 320-350 million GBP to stop production of both ships for a year to carry out a redesign for political reasons - even when the shipyard building/designing them said it was a waste of time (hence the charge to UK taxpayers) and by doing it the UK government broke the fix price contract the cost of both ships went from 3bn to 6bn overnight

I would go for 3 carriers, 1 on duty, 1 on refill/refull, 1 on upgrade / modify (crew an holiday). What do u want with 1 carrier?

Politics always deprioritizes military spending in favor of favored causes or more immediate needs, then there's a military issue that leaves service members in need and politicians scramble to fill the hole they caused in the military. The United States has a ridiculous military budget according to everyone, but when the War on Terror began, the US army needed billions to repair systems that didn't have funding for proper maintenance. For instance, vehicles didn't have working speedometers, transmissions had been on order for months, etc. Key weapon systems that had been planned, like the crusader and commanche, had been killed in order to stockpile cruise missiles for the navy and air force.

They don’t need to operate two simultaneously, having two is good for making sure one is always available when the other needs maintenance. The government seems pretty committed to the Prince of Wales since 2015, other reports suggesting she could be mothballed since are just rumours, and writing the ship off for some technical issues this early in its lifetime is wrong. Especially following the quick and successful development of her sister ship. And this is actually a good advertisement for having two carriers, whilst the Prince of Wales had problems the Queen Elizabeth stepped in and covered her. In terms of the UK CSG capability this is one area we can be positive about, even if Uk defence overall is lacking.

9:06 actually they spent 5 years building the CDG, from 1989 to 1994, nor did it encounter many problems, only a part of one propeller broke during the sea trials and an accident occurred with fire on isolation materials. The flight deck was lengthened during the construction following a decision to acquire Hawkeyes that wasn’t on initial plan in order to give margin for its landing in rough seas, every carrier goes through modifications during construction that’s not a problem.

I live on the Isle of Wight and for however long there was a building size ship blocking the view because it broke down😂

For realistic military planning, if you need one carrier, you should have at least 2 and for the unexpected, 3.

It’s better to have a carrier and not need it, than it is to not have one and need it. I said the same about my wife, the local kebab van and this mornings underwear. All the above proved me right!

Well, the simple matter is that Britain had never to my knowledge was going to have both carriers deployed at the same time. And in fact, it looks like the strategy of having 2 carriers paid off. They had problems with the Prince of Wales, so they swapped out and sent the HMS Queen Elizabeth. Sounds to me that was the whole reason to have 2 carriers and it has quite much worked out that way then, right? So, for such rotations, one carrier would have NEVER worked out well, but with 2? Gee, sounds to me like a near perfect and reasonable setup then, right? And as far as fighter jets? The MAX on board was to be 36, but typical is to be about 18. In fact, that was the same number on such ships during the Falklands war (one had 24 on board, but that was not from planning). As for purchase of f35's? The original plan was a total of 138, and only 48 of them were to be F35B models (the STOVL model for their carriers). Now? Well, it looks like they will NOT purchase any F35A models for their air force, and will ONLY purchase F35B models for their carriers. As a result? They expect to purchase around 70-80 F35B models. That means they WILL be able in a pinch to deploy 2 carriers, and each would about 30-35 fighters each. That is still MUCH more then what Britain was able to deploy and manage during the Falklands war. (one ship with 18, and the other with 24 Harriers). and the F35 is MUCH more of a force projection fighter then the Harriers ever could be. So, for now? Sure, they will rotate between the two carriers, and if one is in dock, the other can be at sea. Quite much EXACLTY how things are turning out. There was never to my knowledge the plan to deploy both carriers at once, but that WILL still be a option such as a war or conflict. In the meantime, they will and do have a operational carrier - and with 2 carriers, that becomes rather practical. Seems to me, the idea to have 2 carriers that enables "one" operational carrier at sea is working out quite well.

It’s not an unlucky ship,the reason it keeps having mechanical problems is plain and simple Labour who were the ruling party at the time purchased the cheapest components that they could to build her hence the constant problems that she suffers from.

The reason is the UK has strategic interests in the South China Sea and will now take on some of the burden of freedom of navigation exercises from the U.S. Australia also plays a key role in this strategic defense of international shipping. Without western intervention, you would be paying an unprecedented monumental tax to China to ship your oil, grain, tech, and other exports to your respective nations. Imagine having to pay a shipping tax that’s more expensive than the item and actual shipping costs combined. Here’s another way to say it, if you rely on oil shipped through the South China Sea, and China controls that shipping lane, your oil costs will go up 10 fold. If you can’t produce enough oil domestically, what are you going to do?

Better to have two of them and not need it than to need it and not have it. plus let’s be honest, ofc there’s gonna be mechanical issues w the new carriers, they’re of a new design and much larger than anything the Royal Navy has had before, but considering how good the queen liz has been thus far when it was at sea on barely half capacity airwings, I’d say it’s worth keeping the pow around, especially since it’s lifespan it’s 50+ years at only £3.5 billion a piece. Also w spending hopefully going up for the armed forces as a whole, hopefully it’ll sort out the main issues it’s currently facing as well as hopefully changing the minds of politicians who seem to be blind as a bat without echo location, that the military is important and it’s well-being and operability and responsibility is not up for debate

PoW has spent less than 3 weeks at sea since being declared fully operational in October of 2021, the rest of the time in maintenence or dry dock.

Mark Felton has done a fascinating video about budget cuts to the military.

Living in Portsmouth, I see these things and I always wonder: What would the headlines say?

I expect the reason is simple*. Great Britain has a vested interest in its NATO commitment. Providing X number of carriers is likely one of the calculations made against an overall estimate of the the cost of alternatives**. Moreover, it's nice to be able to use the one in maintenance as a familiarization and training ship. In this way the phasing operational ship can be fully manned with an expert crew. *The devil's in the details ** For equivalent levels of force projection/multiplication.

“Unlucky” ship really had piss poor engineers working on her.

the point of TWO carriers is that they rotate duty. Defence is always a target for the Govt who see cutting defence as some sort of cure for all financial issues in UK. ships spend a lot of time in dock being refitted and updated. i live across the road from Devonport Dockyard and HMS Drake, ships are in port and having extensive work done every time they dock , often for weeks even months at a time before going back out to sea.

The reason that the Royal Navy wanted bigger aircraft carriers is that they needed to be able to launch and recover naval AWACS aircraft. The lack of naval AWACS left the fleet blind to early warning of low flying fighters from Argentina that were able to do a lot of damage.

Came to learn about British carriers, left knowing more about the MoD as a whole

UK should sue the builder and make them correct everything. These builders are getting away with murder and we are paying for it.

"red headed bastard son who nobody wants" They misnamed the ship, it should be the Duke of Sussex

The UK: We only need one carrier to meet our needs of defense. The US: Defense?

Well seeing how the prince spends more time in port and repair than at sea, having half the air fleet doesn’t seem that bad. Technically they only need to put enough air craft for one carrier.

We still have four new tankers (Tide Class) the last one built in 2019. Fort Victoria still soldiers on but the other two in the class are still in reserve.Our governments do not know how to plan long term which applies to other things besides defence. Also how can MP's who probably know nothing at all about defence be put in charge. It has always been a recipe for disaster.

HMS Prince of Wales 🤝 kuznezov Spending more time in dry dock than open waters

Hello, Mr. Not what you think.

Another issue is that the nature of naval warfare is changing. Battleships were impressive, but never made quite the impact that was expected of them. And they stood no chance against aircraft carriers (think Yamato). Aircraft carriers have been the most formidable naval vessels since WW2, but the Chinese for example have built a whole bunch of land-based missiles specifically to target any hostile vessel - say, an American aircraft carrier. But the amount of money that the UK spends on its military is not nearly enough. That's the long and short of it. Just raise taxes, especially for those who can best afford them.

U.K. needs to get off their arse and step up to the plate and fund the operation of the second carrier. Cut the budget to the Royal family.

You need a minimum of 2 carriers. One will spend half its life in port, because the Navy likes to add gadgets all the time. If this was a commercial ship it would be in dock maybe every 10 years!

HMS Victory was decommissioned almost as soon as she was launched. Then, years later, refitted. Then ….

Admiral Kuznetsov: Finally a worthy opponent, our battle will be pending...

How much would it cost to finish the 2nd carrier? (5 billion) ok, yearly operational cost? (1.5 billion) Wow, how much to stop all work and cancel right now? (7 billion)....

Likely there were cuts on quality on the second ship when it was destined for mothballs. A two phase deployment will have a negative cascade effect, giving the QE the reputation as being a bad place to be posted. Too much pressure in that part of the RN will reduce recruitment, which will increase pressure, etc. It's a downward spiral that can only be altered by an operational change. But without having three ships, there's no way they can meet ongoing operational objectives without incurring burnout. The worst part about this is that Australia is thinking about operating a blue-water navy without a single carrier. Hypohystericalhistory did a video on this and why they desperately need a light carrier for their new unmanned aircraft if they want to be able to oppose a force like China. The PoW could be sold to Australia...except that they have no interest in the very ship they need.

As for the Dry docking and such, I am suggesting that they did the same the like the USAF did with the 485L Program(I was there at it's demise, it was temporarily replaced by an off-the-shelf IBM Sys34 Serial #2) in the '70s, ie...get it all working and then decide to add something new and screws previous parts of the system and continues with such until it's a Total Clusterfuck...IMHO....Uh, it would be easy to fully load out both carriers, merge a few from NATO members on Squadron Rotations....this would allow inter-service training and more....

Just a quick question out of pure curiosity. Why do some countries have aircraft carriers with ramps at the bow, and others have nearly perfectly flat decks? Is there an advantage to either design, or is it just a preference thing?

1. The Wales is a lemon just like it’s namesake. 2. Sell it to Canada like the lemon Upholder submarines. 3. The UK is generally a second class power, a reserve force of the US.

With the UKs Naval history, I hope they can figure it out for the better.

Your level of reporting is top-notch. I use to just watch these to amuse myself with interesting military topics. Now your videos are very current and important. Keep up the great work. I love the off-hard remarks, don't change your style.

How many smaller carriers could have been built for the same cost. Remember HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales. Now we are finding that the tank is redundant. Are these huge carriers redundant?

you should have seen the home built INS Vikrant 1961 (India) I just did some researching.

This story of the British HMS Prince of Wales reminded me of the Brazilian navy, which had so many problems with the São Paulo aircraft carrier (a Clemenceau-class vessel sold by the French navy to Brazil in the 2000s) that it decided to sink it. Three years after commissioning and successful missions, the aircraft carrier São Paulo suffered an accident. There was an explosion in the steam system, leaving 3 dead and many injured. Sent to the dry dock where it spent 5 years in restoration and requalification works. In 2010 she was sent to sea for tests and in 2011 her verification was concluded and approved by the navy and the planning to reintegrate into active service in 2013. Unfortunately in 2012 there was a fire in the vessel's electrical systems, leaving 1 dead and 2 seriously injured. This sent the São Paulo back into drydock for repairs again. In 2015, with the aircraft carrier still under repair, the government announced an ambitious modernization plan to extend the useful life of the ship to 2039 and prepare it to operate the new Sea Gripens. The value of the works was estimated at 1 billion reais ( approximately 190 million US dollars) and the start of works was postponed. In 2017, the navy decided to deactivate the São Paulo aircraft carrier and in 2021 sold it as scrap at an auction to a Turkish company (Sök Denizcilik Tic Sti). However, the Turks refused to receive the ship in their territorial waters, alleging the excessive amount of asbestos inside the aircraft carrier and the ship did not dock again at any base or port in Brazil due to the allegation of the amount of asbestos... Now, in the beginning of In 2023, the Brazilian navy decided to sink the São Paulo in territorial waters at a depth greater than 4,000 meters. Apparently every country in the world has difficulties with aircraft carriers.

Funnily enough, nothing makes me think of cost more than destruction; when a resource is eliminated by the enemy. For instance; a single F-15 is like $80,000,000. Theoretically, you could lose a billion dollars in a single operation if 10 or so get shot down (which isn’t impossible). Insane to think about.

To garuntee 1 ship to be able to deploy, a nation needs 3 to 4 of that type of ship. Therefore the Royal Navy really needed to build 3, not 2.

You would think along of these issues were under warranty as long it took to make and as expensive as it was.

There is so much breaking down on a new ship like pipes that I would consider this a bad job by the manufacturer

Never heard it called the unlucky Ship - who calls it this and where are they based?

Aircraft carriers are a major deterrent - but the problem with deterrents is that you are never sure if they prevented anything... It is hard to prove a negative.

I find it odd that the UK would have the same problems as other countries with less than a handful of carriers. They aren't exactly new to this type of ship. They had enough during WWII to lend us one for the Pacific war until we got the _Essex_ class up and running. Ever heard of the fleet carrier USS Robin? Yeah, she may have been surrounded by American ships and taking orders from the American navy, but her real name was _HMS Victorious._ She was a British ship with British sailors, and one tanky woman to boot. Sad that the Royal Navy has forgotten so much.

with this many issues it's not bad luck it's improper construction by the ship yard they didn't do a proper job on the ship and should be held responsible . the first carrier is almost perfect but this one is just the result of the yard getting slack on there quality control . they more then likely thought it's going in to dry dock so why bother but now it's a ship of the line they need to fix all the stuff they let slide

They'll be thankful within the next year or two... And it's only "unlucky" because of shortcuts taken, likely due to the budget cuts. If it was a design problem then the sister ship would have had all the same issues.