also on operations you always need 2 or a friendly base within 15 to 30 minutes of flight time - if one carrier can not operate you got the second to allow aircraft to land
Even two is iffy, if one is in refit and something happens to the other. Three or four would have been better, even if potentially prohibitive from a financial standpoint.
@@jonyungk True but the likelyhood drops considerably. That is why we operate 4 SSBNs but thats for a Continuous at sea deterrence. You dont always need a carrier in service. Its a very useful option and having 2 means one should always be ready. Same as towhy we dont have enough fighters to fully equip them both, you just jump them over to the other carrier, pretty much everone uses this strategy anyway.
@@cyborg_v271 it must be so embarrassing to know the Chinese has 3 operational carriers , while your puny navy is but a shadow of its former self , how did the British sunk so low is beyond me .
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.
Jup. All these people talking about bad luck... Bad luck ain't systematic. It's certainly possible that this WAS (and will continue to be) "bad luck", but when enough bad things happen to one thing that don't happen to the "identical" other thing, then perhaps they were not identical to begin with (meaning one was inferior which lead to the difference). The difference between these things isn't just theoretical. If it was indeed just "bad luck", then that isn't in itself a reason to mothball the ship, as it would be just as likely that the Queen Elizabeth starts misbehaving and the Prince of Wales starts being reliable. But if there is a quality issue with the Prince of Wales, then that should be considered when deciding how to proceed.
When the massive British armed forces were funded by the spoils of the world's biggest Empire it was easy. Today however the funding for the military comes only from the British tax payer and frankly they have more important things to worry about like rent and paying the electricity bill.
@@nicholasvinen Which is funny itself because its motto "rule the waves" royal navy is now being compared to a navy which didnt even had a ship when the motto was coined. (In 16th century). A fascinating decline of the GB
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
Yep, not to mention the difference in capability between the two CVLs sent down to the Falklands and these newer ones is absolutely massive. They're about 3 times the size. If the UK wants power projection, it needs both
Exactly, mate, but unfortunately, there's a lot of "world of warship" players in the comment section who feel the need to spout off what they 'think' they know.
And despite the propaganda many of the crew on those Falkland Carriers wished they’d got the Ark with its Phantom’s etc. many of them had previously served on her and knew the shortcomings of the Harrier in inclement weather, speed, range etc. In San Carlos bay we prayed for air cover many times and were lucky we didn’t lose more ships.
no the problem with this class started with constant changes in the design which only plays into the contractors pockets. UK can build good ships and subs but rubbish at tendering contracts and stop start with design...same happened with ajax
global austerity yes, melting banks yes, covid 19 made in china yes, all adds to smaller purse but brexshit I disagree, the EU will not survive as it is for another decade and I predict the UK could become part of a more elite, fair, lessons learnt EU club@@julianmorrisco
last decade UK shipyards have built planets most advanced aircraft carriers and nuke subs and new destroyers and frigates, yards have plenty experience. navy needs another 5 modern frigates then more less hi tech ships - coastal patrol, fast attack boats, mine hunters
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.
Not to mention the mechanical failures that plagued her during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The fact her gunnery was actually more accurate than Hood's against Bismarck tends to get overlooked because of it.
The 1941 PoW did more in her months of service than many ships in decades. She dealt a significant blow on the Bismarck and made an heroic run to Malta escorting a convoy. In the Pacific, she and her consort were two ships that were sent to defend against the might of the Japanese Empire, sent prior to the US entering the war. That is guts not bad luck.
POW was considered an unlucky ship after the Battle of Denmark Strait. She was damaged by bombs already while she was outfitted in drydock - a sign of things to come. Then followed her controversial battle against Bismarck, and then she was sunk by Japanes bombers and torpedo planes just days after Pearl Harbor.
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.
I mean even here in the US we made the mistake of closing a bunch of our shipyards after the Soviet Union fell, so now we don’t have the yard capacity we need for the pacific.
@@frainhairylobes3065 There's no shortage of dosh, we just spend it badly or on the wrong stuff. The MoD is filled to the roof with civil servants and every government department and state-run organisation has no difficulty finding the cash for more bureaucrats and managers while front line staff who do the actual work get pay freezes or made redundant. Reminds me of the NHS hospital trust that complained about a lack of funding that meant it was only able to increase its nursing staff by 1%... then it came out that they'd increased the number of managers by 11% in the same time period.
As a French my two euros , why did you don't join the construction process of the R91 (Charles de Gaulle) , French navy could had shared development cost whit Royal Navy... The Charles de Gaulle had a construction cost of 2 566 258 200 British pounds added to a 855 419 400 British pounds of development cost...
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.
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."
It seams so. Worst part is that there is actually good reason most navies have two Carriers, until they literally cant afford more then one. Ships can't operate indefinitely, they would land in repairs from time to time and those tend to take long time. Having two ships you can alternate maintenance, having always at least one operational. US Carriers actually maintain 9 Air wings for 11 Super Carries. Usually only 4-5 is operational at the time, 4-5 is refreshed (vacations, training, lighter duties). It is because usually you have 1 Carrier on duty, one in preparation and one in the refit. Typically at least 3 or 4 Carriers is completely out duty in the dock (difference in numbers is because with more carriers you can plan more effectively). Light/Helicopter Carriers/Assault Ships are more task oriented, so they don't stay on duty all the time and you can do preparations in between operations. But you still can't do much if ship land in repair dock. So it make more sense to have two. In short. UK government is run by monkeys.
Flog it to Australia, we'll give you Au $1,000,000,000 for it, we're use to fixing other countries mistakes, we're getting very good at fixing design mistakes too. We are a member of the AUKUS alliance, and will be working with you on designing and building the new Orca class nuclear propelled submarines. We'll probably need to employ a thousand or so Brits to man the bloody things too, we can barely keep three Collins class deployed. That's the problem with Aussies, as soon as we knock off work we want to grab our surfboards and head for the beach. Not easy for this Tree Lopper who lives in the Blue Mountains.
@@krashdown5814 HMS Prince of Wales took 3.4 billion to build it, why will they sell for 1 billion dollars. It will take 4 billion dollar as bare minimum for it.
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.
nope we can defo build good ships at glasgow and subs at barrow, its all modular connects these days and these yards have the trades guys. problem lies with MOD tendering and not finalising the design before construction commence
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.
@@nobodyspecial4702 I'll always remember when Ark Royal was decommissioned and the Harriers were retired in a spending review and within weeks of the decision NATO intervened in the Libyan Civial War meaning the UK had to rely on ground based aircraft when good old Ark Royal and a load of Harriers would have been an excellent contribution to the intervention. The armed forces still did a great job without a carrier but it does go to show how valuable carriers are to The UK and how short sighted governments have been when it comes to HM Armed Forces
The British press admits it was wrong? You won't find the media in my home country make that mistake, hehe. They just ignore anything that goes against the narrative and keep telling people to not believe their lying eyes when they get proven wrong. One thing I noticed is that you always get those news about how tanks are obsolete now and will be scrapped every 10 years out of the UK only to then be proven wrong over and over again. As far as I can tell, the result was that the British tank building industry just slumbered away with all the know-how being lost and they had to get the Germans to upgrade the Challenger 2 to a 3 now while Commonwealth member states like Australia and Canada bought tanks from the USA and Germany.
I agree with you and I am a year older. It is the same with HS2; cost overruns largely owing to constant delays by government. Now it cannot afford to even get into Euston.
“Two is one, and one is none.” If your one carrier is dry-docked for heavy maintenance, you don’t have a carrier. If a country puts your only carrier down with Titanic and Lusitania, it will be years before a replacement can be built.
The same goes on with the British fleet of nuclear submarines, both SSBNs and SSNs are plagued with faults and problems, the major one being the Rolls Royce PWR2 reactor that equips both class of subs and the result is the entire fleet of SSNS and the entire fleet of SSBNs being at dock, rarely one sub is at sea most of the time they are non operational. As an example for the entire summer of 2023 all SSNS and SSBNs were in port, no nuclear deterrence at all for the Brits..
@@brunol-p_g8800 Interesting you seem to have a lot of knowledge of the operations of RN SSBNs and SSNs, which isn't something that is made public and if you did in fact know these things you wouldn't be posting them on the internet. If your going to try to make things up don't be so specific.
@@xXBisquitsXx that’s not a secret, that’s open source. As of summer 2023 all RN navy submarines were docked at port and none at sea, including SSBNs. The issue is mainly due, like always, to political decisions, in this case retiring the two left Trafalgar class SSNs, which were the only ones operational while the entire fleet had the PWR2 reactors’ issues managed, the same day.
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?
Yes it is common sense. Infact its not even the best practice. As the other commenter said the commonly held knowledge is that if you always want to have 1 carrier fully operational you actually need 3. This allows for one to be in Dry Dock, 1 to be working up and in excercizes and one fully deployed. Britian could afford something like this but they are being idiots. Honestly I almost wish they got invaded. Same with all of europe. Most western powers have gotten dangerously complacent to the point where they have a shadow force at best.
No because i'd rather have one well running aircraft carrier then a huge debt and 2-3 shitty carriers constantly needing fixing... Now where do their priorities stand considering Britain can't afford to do anything with such a small fleet anyway. Or just gave the money to the usa as retainer deposit for whenever you might actually want to use theirs..
@Wilhelm Eley "Three seems to be the best bang for the buck" - maybe, but remember the new carriers displace up to 72,000 tonnes vs the 22,000 tonnes of the carriers they replaced. The two new carriers are worth 6.5 old carriers.
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
If there's one thing the Americans understand, it's that if you have enough carriers maintaining them isn't the problem. It's realizing that they don't need to keep upgrading them every couple years at the expense of a couple billion dollars with no real meaningful gain in capabilities even if General Dynamics says the new systems will be totally worth it.
Yeah, it's also a big part of why the US ditched the JFK and Kitty Hawk; although similarly capable to the Nimitz and Ford carriers, because they weren't nuclear powered, they required a whole separate logistics system. Would the JFK and Kitty Hawk be useful in any war today? They sure would have been, but needing all this special support for them quickly negates that utility in war where logistics are everything.
@@nobodyspecial4702 That my friend is a mixed bag of true and false. The upgrades absolutely need to keep pace with advancing technology. Especially, right now as we have an increase in large hostile countries openly and actively attempting to diminish and weaken the US. My problem lies with the contracts going directly to the American defense giants simply because if they don't get them and go out of business it would severely weaken the US military. Which wouldn't even be a problem if we hadn't let them consolidate into the bohemeths they are today. I think they should have divisions that deal in consumer products, commercial energy generation, industrial technology so that the companies will thrive even when they don't get massive government contracts.
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.
@@westrim That's why you don't make stupid decisions like leaving yourself without operational carrier capacity for a decade... because you can't predict if you'll need it. So you should assume the worst.
It's that wanker George Osborne's idea. Now he's in the British Museum and trying really hard to dispose the museum's crown jewel: The Elgin Marble. One couldn't help oneself but ask if he is actually mole in the British establishment.
As a veteran of the British armed forces I can tell you that this information is very false. Our military is probably the strongest it has ever been in centuries. Yes we are sending supplies to the Ukraine but prior to sending that supplies we have already had more supplies being produced for ourselves to balance it out. As for the HMS Prince of Wales that ship has been useless since the day it was built. It's likely it'll never actually see any service and probably will either be sold off to an allying country put on reserve or taken apart and used for any repairs needed on the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
@@ME98878 The UK is always a top level fighting force. It just isn't big. The UK has the best Special Forces in the world in the SAS and SBS and the largest aircraft carrier fleet in Europe and top 3 in the world.
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
Man you are delusional. Russia will attack the UK never. In fact, no one will, there are no enemies that the UK didn't create by going to their far off country and bombing them. Stop bombing far off countries and literally no one would even have reason, let alone capability, to threaten UK.
@@Dunkopfthen ypu can only imagine how hard all the other european cuntries loughed as Britain cut itself off from it's most importand trade partners, comitting economic sepuko. Or atleast we loughed after we got so annoyed by Britains politicians during Brexit negotiations. I only feel sorry for the people who voted stay or couldn't vote abd now have to live with that decision.
Don't believe this. ALL new weapons systems have problems. The USS Ford and the France's Charles De Gaulle had issues before coming into service. The PoW is no different; it will come into service AND it will be appropriately aircrafted over the next decade. The UK NEEDS two carriers, and the cost of maintaining two is NOT half of the cost of maintaining once carrier. -- I am a former Naval Air Analyst.
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
How fitting. OG wales had severe mechanical issues which only got worse when she arrived at the straight of malaca. Seems like the name "Prince of wales" is cursed and any ship named that will suffer mechanical failures
@@thatonejoey1847 lol. You and OP are fun. That name has no direct influence on the ship. What might have influence is the workers being told that the thing you're putting your sweat into is getting scrapped as soon as you're done because of some politicians that can't get their shit together. Another influence is people such as you two, that believe in superstition. What does it matter? Simple, because different problem causes lead to different solutions. The name change? Yeah, well, it might help with crew behavior so whatever, but don't EXPECT the ship to do good afterwards, so perhaps don't choose a name you don't want tarnished in future... But more important is the worker scenario, because if that was the cause then a name change won't fix things on its own. Instead you should investigate the issues it might have caused and if solving them is worth it. If it isn't scrap the ship, and if you need a ship bite the bullet and build a new one. And perhaps another one to keep up the maintenance rule mentioned in the video. And also, get rid of your incompetent politicians, not that that is ever gonna happen.
@@9SMTM6 someone is grouchy today. Yes slackened quality standards can and always affect a ships performance look at war time t-34s those things were death traps with awful spawling, terrible gear changes, foggy sights, the list goes on. BUT we cannot forget the human element, humans are supertisious creatures, that lucky shirt you have? Pure coincidence. That lucky charm you had since you were a kid? Confirmation bias. People in the military, specially the navy tend to be even more, ever heard of unsinkable Sam? The cat that was aboard when the bismark sunk and later cossack and ark royal? After the third ship they left him in Belfast to improve morale, you wouldn't want to work in a ship under stressful conditions when you have a cat that was a survivor in 3 ships. Ffs we are the species that if you tell them the water they drank has poison that will do xyz, the person will begin to suffer xyz, this is your ship operator, a superstitious biped. Now imagine this, you are a sailor in a ship that was supposed to be scrapped, it is named after another famous ship that suffered massive issues before it got sunk and this is the third time you had to go to drydock, maybe your hyper rational mind would ignore that as "silly superstition" but to the rest of the crew it sure like its haunted and this can cause a drop in morale which can lead to worse performance across the board. So yes superstitions can affect morale and morale affects a ships efficency so maybe those sully little things can actually affect far more than you can imagine
@@thatonejoey1847 you list a lot of examples, but you miss that I never contested that superstition has an influence, just that it's direct. So all your examples, whether they're accurate or not, are meaningless. Yes. By all means rename the ship, as I already said in my earlier comment, it may have indirect influence - though I'd be careful to judge a large group of people based on a few people you've met, as you do. But that's likely not a solution. This is what's pissing me off about you and OP. Whether you believe the superstition or not, you were arguing like it is, and thus the solution you've implied (renaming the ship) doesn't solve anything, it may indeed make things worse. I've already remarked on one scenario in my previous comment (tainting another ship name with superstition). There is exactly ONE situation I can think of where the renaming would fix everything. If the ship doesn't have remaining issues that might prop up in the future (wherever they may come from), and if a SIGNIFICANT part of the superstitious people, which according to your interpretation influence the outcome (and I also implied that it's possible) do actually accept that the influence of the name has been averted with that action.
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.
No. They won't. Because if Darth Donald becomes 👑King of the Seven Genomes👑 - then it really will be WW3 and these useless hulks will be nuked before you can say "arrgh". They're utterly and completely irrelevant.
Agreed. I think cats and traps and a third ordered would have been more ideal but at least there's at least 2 of them and I expect they will turn out to be very capable warships
@@mikelovesbacon given how much the government wasted during the pandemic, we could have bought 3 more. That's not an opinion on the use of money during covid, it's a fact that the money was wasted on PPE that wasn't usable.
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.
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
That's the beauty of a Parliamentary democracy. They will 'parle', slating the incompetence of the other party, until the country goes broke. In truth it's the competence of the same bunch of experts (non governmental) under scrutiny, using the same data.
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!
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.
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.
That's not how it works. Each ship has its own crew. So even if it is sat in dry dock you are still paying the operating costs in terms of man power. It still needs a full compliment of weapons and aircraft.
Just one carrier is a very bad idea for the reasons given in the video. The one third rule is pretty ancient, it even influenced (in a very minor way) Jutland, given part of our battlefleet was undergoing routine mainenance/modifications. Thus Jellicoe had fewer frontline vessels than he wanted. Not having carriers would almost certainly encourage Argentina to invade again, although our submarines routinely patrol those waters as they are well aware.
@@bubba842 In many cases it is how it works, and a carrier will not always have a full compliment of weapons, aircraft on board etc. Crew can be posted elsewhere, as is practiced often in the RN when ships are in maintenance or inactive. You are still paying some operating costs, but they are significantly reduced from a deployed aircraft carrier with a full carrier strike group supporting her. As long as the carriers are well alternated, and maintained, then having one on and one off is a good idea both for money saving and for maintaining a constant CSG capability.
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.
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.
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
How did you miss this? It’s very well documented and reported within Parliament and the ship hasn’t been able to operate as planned either. Our media really aren’t fulfilling their duty as guardians of public interest.
The videos full of inaccuracies giving a grim picture of what is a capable platform. Not sure if they've been bought by the commies or weapons manufacturers? 😂
@@NotWhatYouThink Tide class and Wave class can both carry more than just fuel. In a recent BBC documentary HMS Tidespring was shown transferring food to HMS Queen Elizabeth.
@@NotWhatYouThink Albion and Bulwark weren't scrapped. The capability that HMS Ocean provided was wholly replaced by the QE class. Selling T23s is not such a big sacrifice considering they were at the end of their intended service life. The French CDG carrier had similarly severe propulsion issues early on in its service and has since been a reliable asset to them, as the PoW will be to the UK. With regards to fighter complement and FSS, in the short term the UK can rely on coalition partners to provide those capabilities. Obviously that's not ideal, but in the medium/long term those issues are already being addressed: F35Bs will be delivered and the new FSS class will be built. The UK has built the capability to defend its ideals and interests globally and is willing to do so. This is something we should be proud of; not all wealthy western democracies are prepared to do the same.
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.
@@karakarakiri9568 Yeah his whole video is just nonsense, as usual. He's making the UK's military seem so much worse than it is for literally no reason. Like cool, we've had some problems with Aircraft Carriers, somehow that proves our Army is inadequate? Somehow that means all other types of ships like Destroyers are completely inadequate? It's just typical pro-American European-bashing. Like, the statement from the US General "Britain isn't even a tier one army anymore" > yet we keep beating the US by miles in mock battles ??? so wtf does that make the US Army?? I'm not denying our military is under-funded, but that doesn't outright make it bad or unable to compete anymore. "Will last only 5 days" BS lol. The Ukrainians were expected to be overwhelmed instantly with their rag-tag militias and under-equipped "army", now look at them. Somehow the professional, well-trained UK Armed Forces will last 1000% less time than the Ukrainians (that the British Army helped train) did? Right.
The building of the CDG was still considerably delayed, afaik it wasn't finished until about 1999 ans was operational from 2001. Basically we made one aircraft carrier in the time initially planned for the building of two, and with almost the budget for two.
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.
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.
He was being extremely charitable. The Soviets were terrible at building aircraft carriers so having your ship compared to three of those is a worrying scenario
Can't have issues with something that doesn't exist. It is natural for them to have problems after they have been built. Because duh. No carrier, no problems with carrier. Hahahaha!
@@timpeterson2738 We dont have a need for more than 2 aircraft carriers. We are relying more on our submarines for mainland defence and our destroyers, if we wanted to deploy from far away from the mainland we would most likely just base from commonwealth countries like Australia for example if a war in Asia was to happen, we have no big need for more than 2
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
The success of HMS QE proves it's a good design. She's been operational for years, been all around the globe, including an 8-month deployment leading her CSG through the Asia Pacific region.
There are issues and then there are ISSUES and those were the latter. I mean, the electrical room completely flooding for a full 24 hours and the starboard propeller shaft are very big issues. They are absolutely worth keeping and the politicians saying otherwise are trying to weaken your country and should be voted out. Perhaps they were bought off by Russian money that was all over London until recently?
Nah, they're reserving that for the lead ship of the new class of escort missile cruisers, rumoured to be the "Nonce" class. Other units include the HMS Heath, Saville and Epstein amongst others... And I'm betting the old baggage knew exactly what was going on with her baby-nonce and the Kiddiefiddlers Parliament.. So she's an accessory after the f*ucked (sorry). Evil old bat that she was. Perfectly apt.
I am very sceptical about your assertion that the UK government neither desired nor needed a second aircraft carrier. The French example proves that one carrier alone is next to useless and why would the UK place an order for a third aircraft carrier (HMS Princess of Wales) if you state that having two was questionable? A third purpose built modern carrier will place the Royal Navy second in power only to the USA, given that some of China's are refurbished Soviet era ships.
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.
If there was war or something else this serious UK would easily fix and put her in full working mode. Of course that would cost quite a lot meanwhile Kuznezov cannot be put in functioning state no Mather how much Russia tries. For any Russians out there that wonder why? Well your big shity country does not have technology to repair and maintain a Cold War era aircraft carrier…
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!
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)....
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.
Australia would be happy to have the aircraft carrier. We were supposed to get the Invincible but the Falkland war broke out which stopped the deal. We need all the ships & subs we can get to counter an aggressive China.
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.
This is a painfully ill-informed video I'm afraid. Former political frigidness over the two carriers no longer informs policy or strategy. PWLS is fully intended to takeover from QNLZ when she goes into refit around 24/25. Also, the UK has recently reaffirmed commitments to send regular carrier strike groups in conjunction with the French, a commitment that could not be made with only one carrier.
That may be Alex, but the fact remains the carriers are weak: there's not enough aircraft for a single carrier let alone two . Even if both achieve a full fighter complement, it will still be less than half that of the US carriers. Also, bear in mind, the F35B is less capable than the F35C used in the US Navy. RN normally relies on escorts to protect the carriers from submarines and air threats, but carrier cost has reduced the quantity and quality of destroyers and frigates in the RN to the point that the service can no longer support all its obligations. Couple that with the fact UK carriers have weak defensive systems (ineffective 20mm CIWS - no missile systems) and there's a real risk these ships will be lost in combat. They've spanked all their budget on these white elephants and can't provide security to the UK.
@@octowuss1888 I can only assume you're American 🤦 The UKs F35 buy has always been stretched out to ensure the bulk of the buy is of later block 4 aircraft. The most that would ever be on a QE in normal circumstances would be 24. The surge capacity of 70 is there IF it's ever needed not because it's routine. The ships just have to be able to support doing it, if needed hence the size of them. The UKs defense budget just isn't as big as it used to be. Successive governments saw to that. Some realisation has occured to why that's a problem. Hence the multitude of ship building programs and the national shipbuilding strategy. The UK isn't the USA and is unlikely to ever have more than 24 or so surface escorts. That number was picked out as being enough 30 odd years ago. Having three different types of escort frigates was even a desire 20 years ago. Type 26, 31, 32 and the carriers are just the RN getting what they wanted 20 years ago. Two of the ships types are in build currently.
@@octowuss1888 Not correct, the F35 can operate F35s on each carrier at wartime and has the capacity to carry 72 at flood load, The carrier cost has not reduced the quality of UK destroyers or frigates at all? no clue where youre getting this information from? T31 and T28 frigates on the way, T45s ( very easily argued the best AD Destroyer in the world ) has recently been upgraded with more VLS on the deck. There is no need for missile systems when you have an escort? thats the whole point of the escort, 20mm CIWS is far from ineffective is so every Navy that operates it would have ditched it long ago. The UK defence budget is now the 4th largest in the world (under liz truss would have been the 3rd largest) and IS the largest in Europe.
@@carwyngriffiths No, the max number of F-35B that can be carried by a single carrier is 36. The 72 is for both carriers. Given that HMS Drydock (formerly POW) barely seems capable of travelling out of port without leaking or throwing a propeller shaft that is unlikely. Also, the UK has only purchased 48 currently and those won't be fully delivered until at least 2025. More *may* be ordered but who knows when they will arrive. Bare in mind, they've already lost one due to forgetting to open all the air intakes, and a couple are permanently stationed in the US for training. Thus, the chance of having a fleet of 72 fighters is almost non-existent. UK is broke - Brexit, Lockdown and Ukraine have emptied the coffers!
@@octowuss1888 simply not true, the QE class can carry 70 at surge capacity, 36 is the usual air wing but in no means is the max. And yes the yanks have taken their sweet bloody time delivering. So far the aircraft themselves have been super reliable other than those couple of apes that forgot to uncover the air intakes. In terms of defence budget itself it’s only increased which is good to see, should however be more. Largest defence budget in Europe is always nice though
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.
If the Argentinians had simply waited a few more months, there would have been no Task Force, as a piece of human garbarge called John Nott was intent upon selling Hermes to India and Invincible to Australia.
Yes, Prince of Wales is so 'doomed' she's back in service and on exercise - also, the Americans are making noises about the possibility of permanently basing POW in Australia to link up with the 7th Fleet in case the situation with China ever goes 'hot'.......yes, she's so 'doomed' 😂🙄
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.
It would have pretty much guaranteed that only one carrier was built due to the massive cost. The main cost would have been building all new maintenance facilities, as nowhere in the UK can currently support a nuclear powered ship of that size. At the end of the day the carrier is going to need constant support from tankers for their aircraft and escorts anyway, so it makes more sense to spend that money elsewhere.
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.
That's an unfair report, lots of major warships have initial problems, just look at US ships. HMS Prince of Wales has only just started it's 50 year life. It's last Captain hasn't been born yet.
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....
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
Probably not any single entities fault. During this time there's a lot of scamming and goods being sold over representing themselves as Industry BEST, when it's not! Mostly raw materials. Lookup Kobe Steel manufacturing scandall. That could explain a lot and it's not even who's fault you'd think it might be
Let's say the reason why the UK doesn't really needs the Queen Elizabeth class is that it gives them the costs and the headaches of a REAL carrier, without the advantages of a true carrier with conventional aircrafts. It is a bloated multi HLC destroyer/Cruiser, and it also lacks most of the flexibilities of a true LHC
The problem with HMS Prince of Wales that makes it stand apart from other Aircraft carriers with problems is that they got it's Basics wrong. It's problems lie in the Basic systems, let alone the other advanced parts.
Here’s where governments need to make corporations accountable for any design flaws and engineering problems with needed repairs due to poor quality and poor quality of materials and work.
Год назад
UK F-35's also qualify as portable submarines, so you could only have 1 carrier going and extra F-35's trailing it underwater. Tests have been going on in the Méditerranée
We seem to be placing a lot of faith on a select few very shiny new high tech systems while disregarding other more important aspects of defense expenditure like training, mainaitnece, and most importantly having redundancy and strategic depth. As Ukraine has shown, relying too much on any one system is a fatal mistake. You need to have redundancy and strategic depth in any conflict for when things inevitably go wrong.
@@ghostwriter2031 France has nuclear powered AC, i mean CATOBAR, with flying omni-roles Rafales, bi-engines with longer range, which have never crashed due to a plane problem. Brits will need 4 AC to have the same capabilities so it's normal if they use more their planes and crash more often.
its sad, but i do hope the ukrain conflict wakes people up to why you need a operational army. You might be civil enough to live in a world without guns, but the others might not, putting you in a rather awkward situation.
I watched a video a few days ago that mentioned that if ONE nation built up its military, it forced EVERYONE to build their military-- or get caught with their pants down. The first nation did not build its military for no reason...
An operational army? Maybe I'm missing something here but the U.K. has one of the finest, most well utilised army's in existence that has fought in many recent wars without issue. As for the U.K. getting invaded, by who exactly? Nobody is invading the U.K.
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.
The major issue I see with the QE class is that it has an identity problem. I mean, yes it’s a carrier, duh. But it’s the size of a super carrier, with the air wing of a SVTOL carrier (hence the ski jump). I mean don’t get me wrong, the F35B is a great platform. And in the right hands, it can do the capabilities of a F35C. But a super carrier can deploy fixed wing Early Warning aircraft, logistics aircraft, fixed wing at a higher load capacity, and soon small tanker aircraft. The QE class is limited to early warning helicopters, and svtol aircraft. So I’m thinking; if you’re going to build a ship the size of a super carrier, why not just build a super carrier?
It is a supercarrier. Having catapults or not doesn’t make it a supercarrier. They are thinking of adding catapults soon and imo they might as well put them on the Prince of Wales now as it’s going to be in dry dock for a while anyway. But it can carry a good assortment of aircraft, up to 72 in wartime when they cram everything on. The TV shows don’t do it justice, when they only show it having 12 or so fighters and 12 or so helicopters. When the yanks decide to deliver our F-35B then we will be able to arm them with the typical 24-36 that they should have during peacetime.
@@king_goose in its current state in can't launch AWACS fixed wings. Something considered a key part of modern air combat. It needs catapults to be labeled a super carrier.
@@lewisallan9963 Super carrier isn't a defined term in any way beyond "big carrier". The QEs are super carriers because they are much bigger than carriers operated in the past, and currently operated by countries like Spain and Italy, and the "totally just for helicopters" carriers of Japan. Presence of catapults is not a requirement for a super carrier, size is.
@@king_goose The QE would never deploy with a full complement of F35s except in war. They belong to the RAF, and will remain at their land bases unless absolutely required. There's no point in all of them slowly getting damaged by seawater.
@@mikelovesbacon yes, that is another poor decision. Having shared fighters. The Navy should have got the F-35B and the Airforce the F-35A as it is made for the airforce for runways.
Honestly the idea of the UK having 3 aircraft carriers again sounds like the greatest comeback for the Royal Navy since WW2 Which is sad that it might never happen, a HMS Duke of Scotland would sound insane, even a 4th maybe called HMS Duke of Ireland
Its still feels weird to me that other nations are 30+ years behind the US in carrier technology. Especially the Royal Navy, they should be near to or not far behind the US.
New technology costs a lot of money. And the new USN carriers have plenty of issues to work out due to all of the new stuff they introduced for them. No other country has the time or money to put up with that.
It's all about funding and R&D cost. 2% GDP for defense of the US is close to $1 trillion. 2% of the UK is $50 billion. UK is 'planning' on doubling it to $100 billion by 2030. You're not going to be able to do catch up if you're spending close to 20 times less. The UK has the intellectual capabilities, but not the financing.
@@silverhost9782 Or the manpower. The work force to create such ships are massive. Builders, engineers, contractors, sub contractors, finance department, etc. Then you need the crew to operate these massive ships. Put it this way, the Manhattan Project during WWII employed 130,000 from all over the country and world, while having millions work in tank, plane, gun, munition, and ship factories. I don't think the UK has the manpower to develop super carriers and do other R&D.
Not really that the RN is behind the US in Carrier technology, moreso that it just cannot afford and does not need the similar carriers such as the Gerald R. Ford class etc. You could get 3 Queen Elizabeth's (roughly) for the cost of just one Gerald R. Ford which is the main reason behind it.
Fun Fact: The current Royal Navy is about on par with... the Royal Australian Navy today. And both Japan and South Korea operate more carriers/landing craft with the ability to launch combat aircraft from than the Royal Navy and both have more combat ships than the Royal Navy. If tomorrow South Korea and the UK went to war, there is actually a good chance that without outside intervention that South Korea would win the war in the sea. Against the UK. Y'know, that country that is an island and has been a major naval power for... centuries.
Well no, I’ve been part of war games against the South Koreans and while there good, there not as good as the RN numbers and paper strength don’t much matter so theres actually a really low chance they’d win the FAA are one of the most capable air forces in the world HM submarines are some of the best and highest trained and there’s this group of people called the Royal Marines how are incredibly good at what they do so no there isn’t a high chance they would win.
This is completely untrue the UKs army is underfunded but the UKs navy is 3rd most powerful in the world only China and us would over power them this completely ridiculous comment they have the 2nd most powerful and technological navy in world South Korea only has 2 heli carriers and 1 aircraft carrier being built Japanese carriers again have 2 heli carriers have the size of queen Elizabeth carriers in terms of navies the only countries that comes close 4th and 5th to Uk is France, Russia both have carriers advanced tech and advanced nuclear attack submarines
Japan and South Korea don't even have any operational aircraft carriers capable of fixed wing operations yet, maybe in a few years, but even then, they'll need some time to build up the experience the UK has in this area.
You don't need 2 aircraft carriers, until you need 2 aircraft carriers! Then you wish you had more! Looks like the lessons of the Falkland war have been forgotten when a container ship was drafted to act as an carrier.
Getting rid of her is an obvious mistake but if they were to either mothball or sell her, I'd hope they'd sell her to Japan. Japan definitely could use a carrier larger than the little flat tops they have now. And they have F-35s already. Seems like a perfect match to me. Sad thing is, it is way too logical for it to actually happen.
What's missing from this analysis is that the UK is part of NATO and is unlikely to be going on solo expeditionary wars. HMS Queen Elizabeth's 2022 mission had US and Dutch escorts, It has excercised with the navies of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Japan, and Korea. If the Ukraine war has taught us anything it's that, in war, the most valuable military asset isn't an ideal set of equiment, but allies.
Nice video 👌By the way, to cover for the lack of carrier supply ships and F-35B planes, chances are the US Will step in to help UK just like it did during the Falklands war by providing supplies and satellite intel. _(As I remember while listening to the radio and following newspapers at that time)_
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.
About the F-35s. Queen Elizabeth is going to be retrofitted with an EM catapult in its MLU. This would make the usage of the F-35B obsolescent on this specific carrier. If UK orders more F-35C aircraft in the future, those VTOLs will all become available for the Prince of Wales. In the long run, UK should order the C version rather than more Bs.
Impossible. It doesnt have the angled flight deck, nor the steam prodcution capacity for steam catapults, nor the electrical production capacity for EMALS (the chinese CV double the electrical capacity of the QE to be capable to operate EMALS). The french used the QE design to design a CATOBAR CV, but it was heavily modified and nuclear.
@@karakarakiri9568 The structural requirements are already there these carriers were meant to be catobar but the company got greedy and wanted £3.1 billion for the systems for the two ships so the government went with the current design. Another point to bear in mind with these carriers they are not built the same way that U.S carriers are these are basically a lot of boxes arranged in a given fashion but can be reconfigured as requirements change they are the most modular builds in the world. They are that bad that the U.S navy has spent a lot of time studying the different technologies in these carrier's particularly the autonomous systems that drastically cut crew size it is way too early to judge these ships and the problems with POW have happened during sea trials which is what sea trials are for to have, identify and rectify any problems.
@@andrewaustin6369 sorry that's utter bollocks. There was a large study done years before the carriers were built. That looked at three smaller carriers, Nimitz sized carriers, 60K tonne, 80K tonne. Catobar, Stobar Stovl. The RN preference was an 80K STOVL ship. They got a 70K STOVL ship. After a section was removed from the design. Government meddling after construction had already started led to the single cat+trap ship idea. By then it was far too late to make that change and not even what the RN had actually requested anyway. One ship was always a moronic idea. If we'd have done that we'd have NO operational carrier right now. Also the F35B is a more common carrier aircraft. Four navys will operate it at sea. With potentially another couple maybe in the future. For the UK it's also far easier to hit that surge of 70 aircraft if carrier quals are STOVL based not CATOBAR. Just because the USN can do it the RNs man power and training pipeline just isn't similar.
Nah, it’s just the UK… the US Navy is still the best in the world, the US Military is still the best in the world, the US economy is still the largest in the world… whereas the British navy is crap, the British military is not even tier 2 anymore, and the UK economy is worse than the Russian economy… everyone knows that you British live in the past… so yeah, it is just the UK…
@@ianrichards909 US military is the best at losing two wars back to back. Retired US soldiers say british officers shit all over american officers and the us marines always lose to royal marines in excersises.
@@obvious-troll- Nah, the US Navy is still the best in the world, the US Military is still the best in the world, the US economy is still the largest in the world… whereas the British navy is just crap, the British military is only a tier 2 military and the UK economy is worse than the Russian economy… everyone knows that you British live in the past and that’s why the world calls you America’s little bitch…
