This makes me so proud. All the bitching I had for not having a carrier for 10 years is pointless. Here we are and I couldn’t be more happy to see them flying off the decks
Go forward, Great-Britain! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!
As an old old carrier sailor I am in awe of this aircraft, no catapult needed, no arresting cables needed, a naval leap forward of a magnitude un-dreamt of.
Go forward, Great-Britain! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!
@@jonstewart9792 the union is over we lost because of promises that were never kept, you had your chance to save the UK and blew it by not deliverying near federalism and guaranteed EU citizenship we don't even need a indyref to leave the UK. Fat boris's early General election will suffice anything over 30 seats in Scotland and we are offski polls have SNP winning 53 - 59 seats bye bye UK :) last poll had us winning 55 of all 59 Scottish seats enjoy putting Trident up the Thames ya f*cking loser
Creative_Zach Gaming they’ll come begging to you guys. Well, once welfare gives them the travel cost and they’ve recovered from the nights drinking. Gotta love those ‘romantic’ nationalists.
I never quite took in before that the Queen Elizabeth class was built specifically to handle the F-35. And that no other carrier was so tailor made. Look forward to seeing these big girls and their birds in action!
I am so pleased to see the HMS Queen Elizabeth at sea and taking on aircraft. I had the privilege of seeing the HMS Illustrious when she made her final visit to the River Tyne near North Shields before I moved back to the States. I was quite sad that she was to be retired a couple of years later. I saw it as an end to a long era of Royal Navy fixed-wing aviation. Despite what many folks in the UK might think, the Royal Navy is highly regarded here in America, and is considered the be the world-class navy that all other navies should be measured against!
gary robinson they don’t need defence they would be travelling in a group with x2 type 45 destroyers, x1 missile cruiser, and probably x2 new type 26 frigates when they come to defend it as well as submarine
The QE-class project was launched in 1998 by the Blair Government, many years before the demise of the Invincible class STOVL carriers. We always knew that we would have a hiatus, not an end to fixed-wing carrier strike. Thanks for your comments. I just want the RN to be about twice the size it is now - it has experienced savage defence cuts each decade since the '50s.
A very important time for the RN. Congratulations to all involved. I do wonder if the RAN will one day return to carrier ops beyond the Canberra class... I could see a third Queen Elizabeth or maybe even an enhanced Canberra Class bearing the name "HMAS Australia (III)"!
I think its great that the Brits have bought into the F-35B program. Their expertise in STOVL carrier aviation will be an integral part of making this aircraft the best it can be.
We need to up rate the rest of the navy also. Specially what is the work horse of most navies the numbers of or frigate fleet . My old dad must be spinning on the bottom of the ocean at what's become of his beloved RN.
Lee B yeh sadly the navy has gone down hill but that with all the budget cuts we would be amazing if we had more money and we would have more that 10 planes for the 2 aircraft carriers
@Cat Daddy You saying that the Navy is obselete but then saying Air Superiority is the future are contradicting points. Aircraft carriers are vital when it comes to air superiority in foreign lands, take the Falklands for example, it would have gone a completely different way if it wasn't for the harriers that our carriers took there
@Cat Daddy You know the Chinese have never actually proven that their 'carrier killer" missiles the df-21 and df-26 can actually hit a relatively small moving target at the distances that they'd have to be launched at. And if they put nuclear warheads on those missiles to add to the blast radius to ensure a hit well then we'd be way past conventional warfare at that point.
What can be more sexy? How about something that can do everything the Harrier can do and more? So what is the max speed of the Harrier again? And what's it's radar cross section? Martin the Lightning II makes the Harrier look like a blow up doll!
The Brits were the first to figure out how to land a Corsair on a carrier flight deck in WW2. Looks like they are perfecting skills here. Too bad London has an incompetent mayor.
@flip inheck The F35B is fully operational and combat tested, the USMC is using them on the USMC Carriers....they also use the Harrier on the same flight deck and they are certified till 2022......where are your Harriers?
@flip inheck Not to worry, she is soon to be off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia and the Mighty American Navy will I'm sure send her back across the Atlantic with a full compliment of F35's...with the latest software upgrades!
Both US and GB have a solid ally at southlands, Brazil are now making business with Royal Navy and with US military. Finally we are working with the best and right allys.
Does the exhaust nozzle swivel only on take off and landing, or does it thrust vector for maneuvering like the F22? At any rate, gorgeous ship and very professional people.
Totally agree in context of Royal Navy history of the name four aircraft carriers and one leader of the British fleet that beat the Spanish Armada Ark Royal had to be a better name. Personally I would have not used Prince of Wales as associated with Singapore and defeat by the Japanese not our finest hour- also I can’t stand Prince Charles but hey ho. HMS Ark Royal and HMS Hermes which was flagship in the Falklands would have been my choices. Albeit. Queen Elizabeth does make some sense in view of the grand old lady we have on the throne and. associations with another great Queen at time of the Armada and a very fine WW1 and WW2 Battleship.
@Yeshua is Lord. YESHUAH HAMASHEACK BENAHAELOHIME JESUS CHRIST. THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. FOR THE GLORY OF OUR FATHER.. THE TRINITY OF THE MELEKHAOLAM... SOVEREIGN OF THE VANISHING POINT. BE WITH THOSE IN PERIL ON THE SEA AND COMFORT THOSE OF THEIR LOVED ONES WHO MUST ENDURE THE UNENDURABLE WITH YOUR TRUE AND MOST HOLY SPIRIT OF ETERNAL PEACE AND JOY. REMEMBER LORD. NOT THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS BUT YOUR PROMISE OF YOUR YARDEN. TO WHOS GATE WE RAISE OUR FACES. AND WHOS GLORY FOR YOUR LOVE THE LOVE YOU GAVE.. THE LOVE YOU ARE AND THE LOVE THAT YOU SHARE. WE SHAME OUR COUNTENANCE FOR YOUR PERFECTION. HALLELUJAH EMMANUELLE.. HALLELUJAH... HIS BLOOD OF OUR COVERING. AMIXED WITH THE WATERS OF HIS BROKEN HEART. THE WATERS OF THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE ARE UPON THE THE RIGHT HAND OF THE MERCY SEAT. THE COVENANT TWIXT MAN AND GOD IS SEALED BY THE LAMB.. THANK YOU FATHER FOR YOUR ONLY EVER TRUE SON OF MAN YESHUAH.. JESUS CHRIST. AMEN AMEN & AMEN.
Great ship but would have been an even better one with caps and traps. It is limited to just one type of plane which is not good. A little piece of info for everyone, the ramp can be removed and there is the space underneath the ramp for catapults to be put in, it is part of the original design
Operationally it costs more to use CATOBAR, and the service down time is significantly more than using STOVL. People tend to forget this but the reason USN has so many carriers is the fact that they need as much as 6 months in dry dock, a lot of that time is spent checking, rechecking and reinforcing the CATOBAR systems in the ship. For a smaller navy, STOVL is simply far more practical. Unless the Uk plans on having at least 4 carriers to ensure deployment of one or two at any given time with no down time between deployments, STOVL it is.
Catobar allows for larger aircraft with greater fuel and ordinance. Ask a pilot if would like more fuel and weapons an wait for his reaction. Catobar would let us borrow other countries aircraft.. a good example would be the old ark royal, 4 of our F4 phantom landed on an American carrier . And when you are a long way from land one more place to land and refuel and re arm is a God send. Now let's look at types of aircraft. Put catobar on lizzy we can by any catobar compatible aircraft.. .
richard oakley STOVL is definitely a step down from CATOBAR. That said you defeated your own argument by talking about interoperability of f4s. STOVL literally allows you to land anywhere, heck if they truly had an emergency they could land an f35 on a destroyer or frigate’s helipad. It would fuck the helipad up but you save an expensive plane. Also the F35 in its primary role is designed for high thrust ratio and lightened load. Fuel is not an issue when you have drones flying about with refueling booms. In the end it’s about cost and maintenance. CATOBAR will hamper UK navy more than help at this point.
@@richardoakley8800 I agree with Ken. Although it's cost saving it has its benefits it's similar to choosing nuclear to fuel. In theory nuclear is better but you have port restrictions and downtime will increase etc. It's all just a big trade off and a decision was made so whatever
I've always thought that GB could use a third QE class carrier in order to maintain two strike groups at the same time. Two carriers deployed while a third carrier is in port for maintenance, refitting/refurbishment, resupply, and training, etc.
Let's see how it does in an excercise against the Wasp carrying f-35s. Would it be more efficient to add more light carriers to the inventory, grouping them with new heavily armored missle cruisers? (USA rival to Kirov)
No reason you can't put a ski jump on the wasp that moves on hydraulics so the ski jump does not affect helo operations. Should not weigh all that much either. Should have been done when the harrier was added
Interesting question... I think the issue is that any carrier loaded with F-35's, whether it's the HMS QE or a Wasp class LHD, is going to present a high-value target to the enemy. So that means - in a "real war", against an opponent with a capable navy/airforce - Wasp-sized carriers still can only operate in battle-groups supported by destroyers, frigates, submarines, and logistical ships. So creating smaller battle-groups around small-sized carriers, only capable of launching a handful of planes each, just isn't very efficient in that sense. The HMS QE can support up to 60 aircraft, which puts them on par with a Nimitz class carrier. I think all in all it's a pretty "efficient" type. On paper, at least...
@Ben Liley America class: Identical dimensions/specs as Wasp minus well deck. It IS an Aircraft carrier. That is its designed roll. True, a slow aircraft carrier which severely limits it, but an aircraft carrier non the less.
@Ben Liley When you carry 12 F35's standard and can easily change that to 24 F35's, no well deck, you ARE an aircraft carrier. True, a crippled aircraft carrier due to its small engines limiting its speed, but an aircraft ONLY carrier just the same. In that case, may as well put a ramp on hydraulics allowing a larger flatter deck for helo ops on the front allowing the F35 to fly with larger loads.
@Chris LOL " The era of brute force of heavy bombers and light and nimble dogfighters is gone" Ah dusting off the Era of Dog fighters is over line The "Experts" said that in the 50,60,70,80 and every time they try to kill off dogfighters boy do they ever dig themselves out of their graves and burn the ass of the "experts" If NATO want to put all their eggs in the f 35 basket the Russians and Chinese will be happy to teach them that lesson again
@Chris Well if Rader improves over the next 50 years the f 35 instantly becomes a substandard fighter/bomber/whatever the hell else they are trying to market that pos as lol but if the Royal Navy decided to buy/build a Carrier that has the ability to handle multiple different kinds of aircraft it would future proof it self
Only 8 new frigates and they'll probably be in service in the mid 20s. Cant believe we're only getting 8. Canada is getting 13. We should aim for at least 15 or 20 because the Iranian seizure of a British tanker shows sometime quantity is better than quality. Also, we need them for border control, anti submarine warfare and general duties.
The US is in the same boat. No pun intended. We need frigates badly. Our last class was the Perry class. Too much concentrating on small ball. Hopefully our FFX will produce a solid platform.
@@jaredcrotty251 haha. And I agree, I read a really good article recently on how the US navy needs a lot more frigates. This would help to counter Chinese expansion in the South China Sea and their growing navy. Instead of having 3 massive carrier fleets with huge patrolling a huge area of sea, a dozen cheaper vessels will be much more effective and will send a clear signal to its adversaries that ,if need be, the US has the capacity to flood volatile areas with a dozen frigates. The FFG program is interesting but the US military has a bad record for buying very technically specified ships which are very expensive, not cost effective and often ends up being a disappointment. I think this time around more sense will be shown and you guys buy a proven frigate like the FREMM (used by allies like France/Italy) or have faith in us Brits and buy our type 26 design (which we, the Canadians and Australians have ordered)!
clivenaylor: Most here are in the process of being delivered to the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm From Lockheed Martin & the US National Defence Establishment. However, some with US markings are also trainers & technical support aircraft as well.
Complete respect to all concerned from an ex Crab. Great to see so many different teams, from different Arms from different countries working together to deliver one single objective How about landing our latest 4 new F-35Bs that are still in the USA on to QE and sailing them home rather than flying them like the other 9 just to add a final touch for when they get back to the UK? 4 flying off to Marham from the Solent. I'll have some of that if I may ....
@@shotleylad A really valid point and my comment was maybe more wishful than thinking. But given nobody (not even the test pilots who flew all those test flights on / off QE)) was QE carrier qualified and you only qualify by doing it I think we could get them on and off. Save a lot of Voyager time and fuel as well ....
@@1chish Sounds like a pucca plan mate. I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of takers if they asked for volunteers. Chance to qual en route, top notch accommodation, wardroom service and cuisine, get all your kit on board Stateside and pick it up in person back in Pompey, rather than relying on the mob to transport it for you... I'm not seeing a lot of downsides from where I'm sitting! :-)
@@dx7631 I already had that row with a certain Navylookout Twitter feed peddling rumour as fact and then making arsewipe comments. I mean its not like the Andrew ever tried to do the RAF down is it? And why would the RAF want an F-35A when they have a better QRA and interdiction platform in the Typhoon which is also a far better GA platform (taking over from Tornado next year). A combination of the F-35B as a sensor and suppression asset which then targets for the Typhoon bomb truck is all we need. Plus the RAF are rather good at Harrier type operations in austere areas. And of course the RAF will be getting Tempest to replace early Typhoons ...
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The USA and the UK are already the “Five Eyes” working together daily. We should also accept that they are five nations with shared culture, values, language and history spanning the globe. The best thing they could ever do is band together into an “Anglosphere” of trade, movement and cooperation including defence. Together it could be truly special.
@Darren Walsh It's basically an agreement between the 5 aforementioned countries to share gathered intelligence. I'm not sure how far reaching the agreement is, but I'm pretty sure it covers stuff like, for example, if the UK is tracking a possible terrorist cell member in the UK, and they have regular contact with someone in Australia, they inform the Australian government and pool resources to get a clearer picture of the level of threat Etc to both countries. That's just an example though, and I'm not 100% sure how far it extends :)
If dreams could come true - there are three jets I'd have love to have flown 1 Fairey Delta 2 - Never flew as part of RAF but utterly bad ass aircraft that excited me enormously as a child whilst screaming overhead during testing were I then lived. 2. Eurofighter Typhoon for it's awesome combination of power and fly by wire ease of use and this aircraft for making VTOL fun!
@Joe Bryant the new Astute-class subs are being constructed as we speak (one of/if not the best hunter-killer subs in the world) and the Type 26 and 31 frigates. The carriers are the start of a new expansion for the Royal Navy to accommodate for carrier-strike groups.
@@joebryant8500 we only have two aircraft carriers TO actually escort, and our American and NATO allies, with all the numbers you could ever need are forever working together with us anyway
An interesting concept although it is a pity that the electric catapult could not be achieved. This would have prevented the need for the F35B to carry a lift fan and the associated gearing around the sky being only used for take off and landing. This would also have allowed the RN to train with American and French carriers using the cat & trap system as well as allowing for a greater stores weight, thus extending range and firepower.
@El Draque Hardly cowards lol....as any Friday night after the pubs turn out will show you. Oppressed and controlled by a venal and corrupt system, yes. However, in 1939, as now, Zionists controlled your country, and that is the reason it went to war, despite - as you correctly point out - massive public opinion against getting involved.
i figure once EMALS become more commonplace and when all the new f35Cs aren't going to US navy ships, that all the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be modified with both the EMALS and with an angled flight deck. So if not now, then eventually.
@@JohnJohn-lw7tx so that would have been the HMAS Melbourne (de-commissioned in 1982). I've seen a photo of the HMAS Melbourne alongside the USS Enterprise. Massive size difference! We haven't had a true carrier since, although the new Canberra & Adelaide can take and are fitted for the F-35B (note the ski ramp on them).
Wouldn't worry about it, if anyone tries it on with the Aussies there will be two of these on their way in a matter of days. I think Australia have ordered some Type26 frigates.
Congrats to the Royal Navy from USA Giving the Royal Navy The F-35 Lightning 2 Bravo versions🇺🇸🤝🇬🇧,question are the Royal Navy going to get the F-35 Charlie versions? Good carama back in the cold war Britsh gave us the Harrier jump Jet and helped us formed are Delta Forces too. now we are giving them a favor the F-35Lighting 2 Bravo,hope we give them F-35 Charlie?
Britain builds 15% of every single F35 variant (projected to be 3000+), including Rolls Royce lift system for VTOL on F35B, designed, engineered and manufactured in the UK from British expertise on Harrier www.f35.com/global/participation/united-kingdom-ip
It warms my heart to know that when I toddle off my mortal coil US and UK are firm allies and are a force to reckon with, always have been and always will be hopefully keeping the world a safe place . . . . For the most anyway.
They need to get their act together and ready the ship to fly is a full compliment. At the moment without its aircraft, it is nothing but a floating hotel. One hopes we never need to use the carrier in ernest before this prolonged testing ends. The planes should have been on the ships earlier in my opinion.
@@j.4354 I do understand your comment,yet despite this we hear comments how the ship is being sent to reinforce fleets else where.Its pointless such comments if the ship is unable to undertake its mission, n o matter how proud one might be about the ship. It is capableof fighting but not flying much ,other than helicopters, its armed but still requires missile ships to defend it, Its short of personel and til fully equiped unabale to take part in defensive or offensive action to protect its group or nny other situation. If we had not been so quick to seel the Harriers at least we might have planes..
The Queen Elizabeth is rated for various peacetime configurations, but a common compliment is set to be forty aircraft including up to thirty-six F-35Bs. I expect a wartime compliment to push this to closer to fifty aircraft of the seventy+ she is rated to transport. My question is, how likely is she to carry her full F-35B peacetime compliment in service? I would expect a greater number of helicopters to be carried in the AEWACS, ASW, teansport and Air & Sea Rescue roles, at least twelve -- four transports, two AEWACS, two ASR, four ASW.
America and Britain have a long and mostly great history together. Politics should never play a role in this relationship. We both need one another. It's about doing what's right for our nations.
Well the problem is that car was for use by top officials from the HMS. I have no problem with certain perks or resources being given to the commander (s) of the HMS Q. When they had more money it was even common to assign a car with driver. However that car was not assigned for just personal use. A massive issue since then any subordinates who question the commander are screwed over for their duties and things like promotions. It creates an absolute toxic environment. I would have not only fired the commander but also cancelled his pension and kick out his family from military housing. If a commander is say given a parking spot, and someone takes it? Then roll out a tank or big duce truck and block in the disrespectful sap that took the parking spot. However the car was not assigned for use only by the commander. This is taxpayer funded resources and any commander that takes an attitude of using superior rank to bully others from use of that car is to be immediately fired. If the car was assigned to him then no one better dare touch it. However the reverse is also true. This idea of government officials or military thinking that they can use their power and rank to use government property as their own is a beyond toxic environment since such positions allow VERY easy retribution against you if you question your commander. You allow such crap then military becomes currupted and position of authority is now going to be used to grab and get perks not actually assigned to you. You can NEVER EVER allow this kind of thinking to ooze into the command structure. Commanders must never use their authority over others to grab things that are not theirs. I have zero tolerance for such actions. If such behaviour is allowed then military becomes currupted - it's already bad enough. I would have canned the bigger and kicked him out of the service. If car was assigned to him and someone else took or used it? Again instant termination.
@@Albertkallal This "absolute" morality for the military is one thing, but the politicians who control the military have proved themselves to be utterly corrupt in allowing themselves to be "lobbied" so lucratively and in abusing their expenses-rules, inter alia.
There’s pro and con to everything. Strong military = national security but also invites military adventures for “democracy and human rights”. The solution isn’t clear cut as your dry morals might like unfortunately.