Why This Small Carrier is Most Powerful Outside of the Supercarriers 

I’m curious too!

That was the bridle that connected the fighter to the catapult shuttle. It's basically a piece of steel cable whose ends attached to the aircraft, and looped around said shuttle and as shown, fell into the ocean after launch. It has since been replaced by a tow bar permanently mounted on the airplane's nose gear strut. It hooks to a notch on the cat shuttle and is a permanent part of the airplane. It allows faster launch, and eliminates the waste of using an expensive cable just once.

if you go frame by frame you cant see anything so it might just be a wave

@@petesheppard1709 That's right, it was used with the Super Etendard, a now retired aircraft.

@@BruneSixtine 👍

You are so wright, hard cooked baguettes are much better at piercing armor than fluffy squashy Harris bread that would bounce onto it without doing much damages... Question of taste afterall ❤😋

Mates, I guess we're all french, but this is still sensitive, "secret défense" intel you're disclosing !!

they deserve it tbh this carrier spends more time dry docked for repairs than it does on the ocean

​@@dbz9393you mean that USA never had problem with their cariers ?

​@@nathanturpin109 Maybe, Skippy, but at least we know how to spell "carriers".

@@dbz9393 hahaha well its an expensive piece after all

stfu you're so arrogant @@Rotorhead1651

And only non-US nuclear carrier in the world.

Soviet Kiev class "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" do have a single catapult, but it was decommissioned in 1996 while Kuznetsov doesn't have a catapult.

@@ErnestJay88 Kiev class never had catapults, they operated VTOL aircraft and choppers. One is even still in service as INS Vikramaditya, they added a ski-ramp and arrestor wires to convert it to a pure aircraft carrier, but there were still no catapults.

Make BAGUETTEs Great Again 🥖

I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?

Già nella 1a guerra mondiale Ci vollero 1milione e700 soldati americani. Nella 2a hanno combattuto 2 milioni di americani.

And don't forget the nukes!

Third most deployed nukes in the world

Aren’t we fourth now ? US, Russia, China, France

@@Dante_YL for nukes? 3rd most deployed, 4th most in total

This capability is what allowed the English to lend the U.S. a carrier in WWII and allowed the U.S. to equip English carriers with F4U Corsair fighter squadrons to augment English aircraft production. The English and American navies operated together against the Japanese in much of the Pacific campaign. YES, it is an incredible capability. Not sure why the English moved away from flat-deck carriers.

@@jimwolaver9375 Didn't the United States support Axis power Japan during World War II?

How did it go?

never heard back from him @@NotWhatYouThink

​@@NotWhatYouThink4:13 did you notice something unusual with the aircraft, what was that?

The French talk a lot.

@@krishd4392its a fa18

No more African resources, new French carrier will be just a dream...

​@@franzmenzies5268 They can get the ressources elsewhere, in case you don't know.

@@franzmenzies5268cry about it and learn that ressources are available elsewhere

@@franzmenzies5268Like wits you show by your comment...a dream...

@@franzmenzies5268Which ressources, engineers and doctors?

Oh sure, to build Nordstream I and II 🤣🤣 By the way, what's the name of your aircarrier? Die Deutschen haben die arrogante Angewohnheit, ihre Nachbarn zu unterschätzen.

Eeh, monsieur! Teins ma baguette, sil voids plais.

@@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid Tiens ma baguette, s'il vous plais :-)

The F-35C is the carrier variant of the F-35. The B variant is the VTOL variant used by the Marines. The lack of weapons on the F-35 makes sense when you recognize the F-18E has 12 hardpoints and is expected to operate with the F-35 as either a missile or bomb truck. The more planes Americans can put on their carriers allow for more specialization. The Rafale is most likely the best fourth-generation fighter in the world. The key edge it has is the French gave it one of the best aviation and sensor packages in the world. The only plane that beats it in that regard is the F-35.

Rafale is an excellent aircraft.

That's cold. 🥶😂

@@Rotorhead1651that’s warm*

That's what she said

Q- What is the French Foreign Legion? A- France contracting mercenaries, to get their asses kicked for them...... .....and that's why no one talks about it.

@@Rotorhead1651 the french foreign legion aren't mercenaries they don't hire mercenaries and they have had a exceptionally good track record winning multiple dozen of battles and when they lost they took many enemies down with them

​​@@Rotorhead1651huh? The french foreign legion are not mercenaries what are you talking about?

​@@Rotorhead1651Not sure if thats supposed to be a joke or not 100% serious but the FFL is actually very good. Too bad unfortunately it suffers from the same flaw as currently (except Italy, ironically) every other western military unit and army, that is, being under the control of an absolute weak coward pussbag president.

@@Rotorhead1651 Is that why they managed to fulfill their mission in Mali in less then 2 years while the Americans completely failed in Afghanistan after 2 decades? Weird huh. France has better quality per solider, the US on the other hand have better equipment for their soldiers but unfortunately that doesn't equate to better infantry, too bad.

It's also a mean of keeping industrial and operational skills

I served 21 years in the Marines. I believe the more accurate saying is, "don't f**k with Marines". However you are correct. The US has 11 carriers because about 1/3 are operational around the world, about 13 are in for extended refit and maintenance, and about 1/3 are preparing/training for operational cruises. The US can sortie than 4 carriers during a crisis if necessary. France's carrier force is useless the majority of the time due to the need for maintenance and training before redeploying. France does have a new carrier larger than the de Gaulle that is in design and estimated to be commissioned in 2038 or later if not cancelled like previous aircraft carriers. While the de Gaulle will likely still be operational by then, it will be aging in its technology and will be over 35 years old by then. France is a small country but the tens of billions of dollars it is spending on the Green scam, it could be operating multiple carriers and a stronger military. Russia is a serious threat to NATO for many reasons. NATO cannot trust any treaty or agreement that Russia signs. NATO cannot trust anything Putin says. NATO is woefully short of weapons and ammunitions in the event Russia attacks. Not all NATO countries will honor article 5 of the NATO agreement. Russia has the coordinates of every strategic military target in NATO which includes runways. NATO needs aircraft carriers in order to sustain air defense when its airfields are disabled by Russian missiles. Aircraft carriers can be constantly moving and are unpredictable where they will be at any given hour making them difficult to target. But the standoff distance needed by the carriers means they need aircraft with longer ranges OR the ability to refuel in flight. The US Navy is in the process of solving this problem by developing carrier-based unmanned tankers to refuel aircraft on their way to targets and on their way back to the carrier. But for every such unmanned tanker on a carrier there will necessarily be fewer combat aircraft. The UK is in a better situation than France in that it can have at least one of its two carriers operational most of the time but not all of the time. I applaud France and the UK and even Japan for having some carrier-based offensive capabilities. But in my opinion, NATO and our other allies need to up their game in carrier offensive capabilities. My apologies for the long post. In the 3 years I was in combat, there was never enough support and resupplies were unreliable. But that was before the Middle East wars.

In the Navy it's "7 is 1" 😂

​@@BMF6889respect for your service... My cousin and best mate was a Major in the Australian SASR and has trained and trained with the best in the world. He always says of all the soldiers he's worked with, he has the most respect for the USMC and it was on a mission in the early days of Afghanistan where he got a bronze star awarded to him by the marines. So it's fair to say the respect is definitely reciprocated. Partied with some of the boys he made friends from the USMC once too and you mofos are cut from a different cloth. Wild boys, friggin animals 😂

​@@BMF6889having only been given the opportunity of serving 10 years in the Marines, have to say you're absolutely right. The two is one motto is true; it refers to having a battle buddy both in operations and visiting foreign ports on short leave. Also having spare parts to make sure critical equipment stays operational.

Merci!

Yippeee!

I can die happy. 🤨🙄😑

I'm British and I don't approve.

@@ivortoadNormal vous êtes stupides.

Yeah their newer one is going to be awesome.

Looking forward to the delays in production, the need for imports from other countries, the continued problem of their planes not having folding wings for storage, the lack of a sister ship, and probably creating another several million dollars in problems to fix, that their government will be incredibly hesitant to pay.

@@PermissiveMoggy🚫❌🛑⛔️📛

Just like AirBus planes compared to Boeing 👀🥖

@@PermissiveMoggy I'd love to know what it is about these facts, that so few of you seemingly understand today? In today's world, of hi-tech Anti-Ship ballistic missiles, like the Chinese DF-21D - operational range (1700 km's) (that can sink any carrier in the world with a single hit). All Navies, including the USA's, without the ability to stop these missiles, are in effect obsolete today. Russia's Zircon Anti-Ship missile, though inferior in way of operational range-400kms it can be fired from Aircraft, Subs, and Ships making it deadly to any carrier in the world. (Russia also has the Brahmos and the P-800 Oniks Anti-Ship missiles). We know, neither the USA, the British and the French, have a destroyer, or any other means that can defend against these modern hi tech ASM's today! Making these western Navy's obsolete in today's world. The distances, these jets can travel is about 500-650 (max) km's out - and the same back again = 1300 km's range. Seeing them unable to deploy any carrier close enough, to reach any inland target, and then get back again? As anywhere inside 1700 km's, they're sunk, they're toast, they're history. This is also why when we hear the USA trumpeting out how they're sending a carrier to the South China Sea, (as some kind of propaganda imagined threat toward China) you'll never see them closer than 2000 km's from Chinas mainland when looking at their GPS positioning, it's known as "bluster". So why do we see these rubbish remedial misinformation videos all the time?

And you can be a immigrant wasteland😂

​@@antoniohagopian213 triggered

You forgot about the tactical smokescreen, how do you defeat something that you cannot see??????? Kuznetsov is the greatest sunderwater carrier and smokescreen dispenser in the entire world!

You people are obsessed with Russia.

​@@antoniohagopian213 Is that supposed to be an actual insult? HERE'S how you insult someone: Q- How many Russian Naval ships have been converted into coral reefs? A- Most of them...... including their submarines.

those who make fun of this army know nothing about history

Just a reminder: without the French Army (led by Generals Rocambeau and La Fayette) and the French Royal Navy ( led by Admiral de Grasse) the Brits, led by Admiral Graves, would have got through to Yorktown where the British Army, led by General Cornwallis, was entrenched and shielded. Graves' defeat at the Battle of the Capes of Virginia, also known as the Sea Battle of the Bay of Chesapeake (September 1781), deprived the English of any reinforcement, ammunitions and food. The capitulation of Yorktown followed, and thus the American independence became factual and official. Incidentally, the French Navy is still affectionately nicknamed "la royale". ⚓

Dassaul Rafale and AirBus planes : hold our BAGUETTE 🥖

@@Booz2020 Actually, the French will sometimes just set that stuff down on a dry spot on the table. The crust is almost its own dish.

​@@stcredzeroIt was just a joke on the "Hold my beer." expression.

Perun already covered how the French military & military industry successfully run themselves on a tight budget

@@axanarahyanda628 I know. That was my pedanterrific "actually" response to that.

Interesting 😊👍🏼

Pero bueno, usted por aquí.🫡🫡🫡

Oh yeah? Ask my EX-wife ......"MORE" was never enough!

Sophia Fergara 👀

So true it's such a rare and interesting, system

De Gaulle does have much better self-defense capability than most carriers. Missiles aside, she also carries a bunch of auto cannons for self-defense. That was kinda prescient. Nimitz & Ford have a substantial layered anti-air defense & Japana’s Hyuga & Ise have large missile magazines & their own torpedos. Most modern carriers struggle to take care of themselves, however. QE, for instance, just as Phalanx.

And pretty successful a that and with the war in Ukraine more funding is being put into projects to make France and Europe more independent

Nella 1 guerra mondiale gli usa inviarono in Francia 1,7 milioni di soldati. Nella 2 gm combatterono 2 milioni di soldati americani.

This why we gave his name to our carrier

I was wondering if anyone else caught that. 😂🤣😉👍

Oh that wasn't just me thougg what he says next just roles off the tongue.

Hehe just noticed it myself. That probably happened because I was so focused on what I was going to say next 😅

True, the F-14 didn't have "folding wings". But the variable-sweep wings were put into "oversweep" (75º) for taxiing and parking, and in fact took up less deck space than a Super Hornet with wings folded.

The Rafale has somewhat small delta wings, so it's easy to stack them inside even without folding them (which always comes with structural issues - it's why the F-18 can't carry AMRAAMs on its wingtips like the F-16 does). The same was true with the US Navy's A-4. The F-14 had swing wings, which take up less space when swept backwards, but even so it took up more space than a Rafale.

Enterprise was basically the same size as the Nimitz-class, though. She was fitted with eight submarine reactors cause that was what they had at the time. De Gaulle’s a lot smaller and can make do with less.

@@grahamstrouse1165 Every carrier the US has build since Forestall has been about the same size. De Gaulle is a lot closer to the old Midway class - about half the displacement of the US current carriers, though only a couple hundred feet shorter.

back in the 80's, France sold Exocet air to sea missiles to Italy, and Italy sold some to Argentina and you guys sunk a British ship with it ! Well, sorry you lost that war, the Brits are touchy with their colonies. Anyway the Exocet was combat proven ever since and is still available on the Rafale today 40+ years later (modernised version of course)

But his info is flawed as CdG spends more time in repairs than actually sailing !!

@@solentlifeuk You are not wrong...after all, 1 is none and 2 is 1. But when the 1 is ready to go, it is the most powerful...for now.

The PA-NG (PorteAvion-Nouvelle Génération/Air carrier new generation) is in preparation and will be the largest warship in Europe and one of the most imposing in the world. Called to succeed the Charles de Gaulle, the new generation aircraft carrier (PA-NG) constitutes a major technological and industrial challenge.

Ultimately, they did end up going with aluminum from across the pond 😅

​@@ArgosySpecOps America to the rescue again. 😂👍🇺🇲

I thought copper-aluminum alloys were used for their ability to work-harden easily to protect against cavitation bubble damage even as it wears down. Like a self-hardening surface on an otherwise ductile part. I guess if they couldn't get a good quality propeller otherwise, there's no choice.

​@@Rotorhead1651The least ravaged Average France Hater :

​@@ArgosySpecOpsYour lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion.

Looks like a compressor stall, or maybe a bird strike.

It exploded

​@@antoniohagopian213 In technical terms, it go blowy-uppy. 😂

'Merica!

Well if you look at the numbers that's a no contest (as a French, who doesn't like US army mentality). To be fair, it's the only country which can say they really have a carrier fleet. Because carriers need maintenance ~4months a year so with just one you can't keep a permanent presence on a region. It's a strategical error to invest only on one carrier (which is still very expensive) and it was criticized by some of our generals. But politicians need big projects to win votes, they don't care about the utility of it... And for the UK, they have no nuclear carrier lack tankers so they aren't able to deploy their carriers 🤡

​​​@@paul4381 A- A French what? 2- WTF does the U.S. Army have to do with anybody's Navy? & 🔺- Generals don't run the Navy, Admirals do.

@@paul4381It's not that the Royal Navy lack tankers, it's sold support ships. While our tankers have some solid stores capability, we only have 1 dedicated solid stores ship. The replacement class of 3 isn't due until 2029 - 2033.

For the British Royal Navy Carriers to deploy, they require the US Navy to provide escort destroyers because they lack the required number to assemble a battle group to protect the carriers.

Well there is no true answer to that question. Both are formidable aircrafts. F35 have unmatched passive stealth abilities and sensors and everything that we don't know about it, the pride of us military industry. But it is still a young design that will improve over time and get more reliable when all its problems will be solved. Rafale is much more older and developped, combat proven , can do all the missions that would normally require multiples kind of aircrafts. It has top notch sensors developped by Thales, maybe the best active stealth system and can launch meteor missile which is the best air to air missile on the market and has wider range detection and shooting than any other missile. The question would really be : can a meteor missile launched by a rafale detect and shoot an F35 before being shot ? Another question would be : would an F35 do everything a rafale can do as effectively ? In the end it does not really matter since we're allies those planes will only fight together and not against each other. I don't know which is the best but I'm quite sure together they're unbeatable

Yeah I know. American carriers like John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Gerald R. Ford, are also all named after prominent male figures. But ship have been referred to as “she” for a long time, at least in the English language.

The Bismark was called "he," and I'm guessing that's not a tradition anyone wants to keep alive

​@@shutout951 Probably has something to do with it's current status as a coral reef.

​@@NotWhatYouThink Look, I'm not saying everyone in every Navy or maritime profession is gay, but until the last century, they sure went to a lot of trouble to keep women off of ships, even claiming it was bad luck. 😂🤣

@@shutout951 The Germans tended to name all their ships as He, Im guessing its becuase ship in German maybe a masculine noun. Which is generally why most countries call their ships he or her. Its masculine and feminine nouns.

Yes, that was an old video clip of the launch of a Super Etendard aircraft which has been retired since. It used a wire sling to connect from the front wheel assembly to the catapult. What you see there is the said wire sling being jettison during launching.

@@445Navigator Called the 'bridle' in US naval terms.

Just not submarines. Sorry, couldn't resist it!

@@JP_TaVeryMuch As an Aussie, I can relate to that. We pissed off the French when we cancelled the sub order. But might live to regret it? 🥴🇦🇺

@@maxhugen I'm not in the industry but from what I have gathered, it was certainly the right decision. The french subs rely on outdated propulsion and power supply technology, so they really doth protest too much.

it's just because they have you by the balls, and without balls it's impossible to say no to them.

@@jomo350350 Call me a dingbat but who is your "you" and who also is your "they" pray?

Apologies if NWYT already has a video about it! Send me the video title if you happen to know it!

That is so LGBT+ of China, bless them. This should be highlighted more, they would love that attention. Come WW3, it's not the size of guns, it will be who can draw the biggest rainbow. 🤭

​​@@PaulGrayUK Dog......that was so cold it was ICY! 🥶🥶🥶🥶😂

@@PaulGrayUKchina more like California

@@raidenj1295 ah, Chinalifornia. 🤭

You will see fourth and fifth aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear reactors and electric magnetic catapult in ten years. France spent 14 years in building one carrier. China will spends 20 year in building 5 carriers. And go goggle 055 destroyer， you will see capability of China building warships in recent 20 years.

🇬🇧

Wrong, GB was the first country to invent Carriers, the Last 20 years are the only time period we havnt had any since pre WW2. We have more experience with aircraft carriers then france historically.

@@ashleygoggs5679 bro uk only had a gap between the last gen Invincible class aircraft carrier and the QE class of 4 years not 20.

@@ashleygoggs5679 you have been without real carriers for decades. Even your harrier equipped cruisers stopped fixed wing operations almost twenty years ago. You are only just recently getting back in the swing of operations with a real carrier and the last time I heard you don’t even have full air wings yet. Nor are your ships fully crewed. You also are short on escort vessels for proper operations. Experience doesn’t last, you either use it or you lose it and have to regain it, as we recently learned when we let our anti submarine skills decay after the end of the Cold War. Yes you “had” experience in the past but the French have continually maintained operations during your hiatus. My statement still stands.

@@Samaldoful Britain sold off our HMS ocean in 2018 you are correct but she stopped being used as a traditional aircraft carrier for a long time, Her roll was more of an amphibious assault ship. In 2011 she was used as a helicopter carrier which is when apaches where first used in action by the british. So technically i am correct, we havnt used carriers in their conventional sense in around 20 years.

What do you think about the double whammy of the newest Royal Navy carriers? All we've been told here in the UK is that one's for running the ship, the other for running the flight deck. Sounds sensible but methinks that there's more to it than that. If the two command centres had to shout ever louder to be heard over the other lot, a cheaper solution would surely have been to upgrade their headphones‽

@@JP_TaVeryMuch It looks weird, but I guess they wanted that 'midship lift really badly...

And has actual AEW. Why GB decided to make the QE class STOVL when they were originally CATOBAR (hence their size) is beyond me. It's not even a case of throwing good money after bad, it's making the initial investment even more expensive by spending additional money for a result that manages to falls short of any expectations. Times two.

What a daft post ...

@@Pouncer9000The reason is that it would’ve meant we could only procure 1 expensive carrier for marginal and debatable capability gain instead of two. As we are finding out with the teething issues of our carriers, two is one and one is indeed none. Two carriers with ramps is orders of magnitude better than one. It’s not fair to directly compare the state of the brand new RN carriers to the very mature Charles de Gaulle either, since they’re at very different points in their service lives. It’ll be interesting to compare the two sets of capabilities in 2029. Finally, and I’m sure most will agree with me here: F-35 > Rafale

​@@TheTfrules F35>Rafale? Depends on the mission and situation. From a carrier with catapult, yes. F35 from a carrier without catapult vs rafale from a carrier with catapult, not really. It has less autonomy and less payload.

@@Crapulax The F-35B can carry a full payload from a ramp launch. Also I would argue the benefits of improved stealth and sensors outweigh payload capacity in importance from a peer conflict perspective.

I'm a Brit too but wouldn't ever say they were better even if they worked perfectly. Actually, I do like the appearance of the RN carriers, if the ski ramps were removed I'd think they were the best looking carriers, despite looks not being important.

They're still fairly new, prop shafts are prone to issues (because huge rapidly spinning metal bar that needs a hole in the hull is obviously difficult to keep up to snuff) and France had a devil of a time when Charles de Gaulle was new. Believe they had a reactor leak at one point.

Rafale*

Whose aircraft carrier is most susceptible to Russia’s hypersonics is irrelevant. They all are.

​@@ts757arseapples to oranges lmao. The zumwalt was a stealth ship that actually pushed technological boundaries. The independence was a cruiser with a carrier face-lift, the carrier body and drive train was not set up for the top heaviness of the carrier deck. Prop issues weren't even the biggest deal with the independence class carriers, it was the shityjob welds breaking because they tried using two different metals for the construction of the shop. there was nothing advanced about that. The US needed carriers built quickly to fight Japan, and we had 2 or 3 operational essx class carriers at the time, and we had 1 in for dry docks. The entire reason the indepance class failed is because it was a botched, rushed attempt at getting more carriers. "Quantity over quality" as the us needed quick completion time on ships during that period in the war. The queen Elizabeth super carrier is poorly designed pile of garbage that gives the English government a false sense of security. The type 45s are the only vessel you mentioned that I don't have 1st or 2nd hand knowledge of but anything designed by the British these days seems to develop some serious issues😂

​@@fZionists78 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣..... ...oh, I'm sorry. Were you being serious? 🖕😈

​​@@ts757arseif we're being honest the problems the QE has right now has nothing to do with the ship. Most big ships like these have reliability issues in their early years like the CDG used to have in the 2000s, there is also the kerffufle with the f-35 and the genius procurement decision of the governement. BUT the QE is still barely superior to the CDG in some categories while getting massacred in certain crucial capability area. -endurance and speed: people argue the QE isn't any slower than the CDG because their top speed is actually that of their escort, which is technically correct but fails to take resupply into xonsideration, the QE needs alo LOT of resupplying because it burns a lot of fuel on top of everything else. The QE needs to slow down a lot more often for resupply ships to catch up compared to the CDG and the CDG still has higher top speed in emergency situations. -aircraft per vessel: you'd think the QE would have a massive advantage in carry capacity, and it technically does (it can carry twice as many as the CDG) but its effective sortie rate is actually almost the same as the CDG believe it or not, a little above 30 aircraft for both is the sweet spot. The reason is simply that catapult are really good at launching aircrafts meaning even with increased runways it still can barely match that of the CDG -aircraft type: the CDG is catobar meaning it is very liberal in the types of aircraft it can carry and their payload whereas the QE pretty much relies on the F-35 to get an advantage, if the F-35 weren't a thing the QE's aircraft would have reduced operational ranges and limited payload capacity, thank goodness the british procurement managed to secure all of the necessary F 35... Right? Right? -related but deserves its own category: awacs. Awacs are just about the most important aircraft in any carrier group, they don't carry fancy missiles what they do instead is target acquisition, early warning, coordination etc... Tldr awacs are what make a carrier group so scary. The QE cannot carry fixed wing awacs because it's not catobar instead relying on cope rotary wing awacs which have serious range and capability issues (duh). What this means is that the QE is dependant on shore/inland radar, fire control and so on... Or need to team up with a carrier that actually has awacs (cough america cough) As you can see the QE is dramatically less impactful than an equivalent catobar carrier, i think it informs us greatly on the job the royal navy intends to pursue in the future: being the USA's drinking buddy. Its capabilities on its own are fairly unremarkable but adding a more competent catobar carrier and the american made F-35 can fix a lot of the QE's issues while simultaneously making it more affordable. Meanwhile france very much intends to do stuff on its own which explains why catobar is our prefered option compared to more numerous but less independant stobar or stovl (yes i'm a totally unbiased french trust me i totally know what i'm talking about).