Any idea when it's due to leave? Cant believe I missed this coming up the Clyde. Last time I seen an aircraft carrier on the Clyde, it was the HMS Ark Royal. Couldn't believe how small it was.
Knowing the area well she looks enormous and impressive wish I’d seen her from the road which runs parallel with the water ( Loch Long ) If you ever get the chance the drive from Helensburgh to Arrochar which passes this scene and Faslane is spectacular out of this world
Extremely impressive BUT as I am watching I am thinking of my dad who passed at 92 last year. Before he came to Canada in the 50s, he was a shipwright in Aberdeen building tugboats.
The original projection for the replacement carriers were envisioned by the UK Government in 1997, and that was published 1998. AT the time a Eurofighter Typhoon with a tailhook was studied, see Janes and Aviation Weekly. The original vision was for the Elisabeth to be angle decked with catapult. I was actively flying at the time sand was wondering what the Brit s were going to do without a Harrier. Also, originally only one carrier was envisioned to be built. All that other stuff came later, after the selection of the F35 fly-off. The Brit s would have been Much better served with their original intention.
Yep, exactly my thoughts. How on earth does an app cost seven times that of a capital warship.... oh I know, that’ll be the thousand pounds a day for every consultant and £6K per day for the “lead” consultant in loved in ripping the country off... I can safely say the CO of QE is not on that level of remuneration, nor is the First Sea Lord! I know who I’d trust to deliver and it’s not a PWC (other money making businesses are available) consultant. Daylight robbery paid for by the British taxpayer - discuss...
I don't understand the closeness of this video, the Police issued a warning for people not to be coming near it within 4miles, even docked or in the estuary? Well done for exposing the UK's tactical measures.
@@equaliser2265 Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators. Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
Should have been built with catapult launch system .haven't had a really carrier since 1970s .eg old ark royal eagle .launching phantoms Buccaneers etc
Oh not that old chestnut. So tell me Admiral what CATOBAR system would you have fitted on an electric ship back in 2010? And are you also saying Invincible and Hermes were not 'real' carriers'?
They are talking about an electric system and carrying drones, the steam catapults eat up a lot of space below decks that can be used for aircraft storage. She will be having a refit after this years deployment. The use of drones will be big in the future as the stealth aircraft will be reserved for special missions only in order to extend their life.
@@billydonaldson6483 Hence why there’s big prospects of a STOVL drone, something similar to F-35’s system, though less equipment and tech fitted compared to the actual jet itself. Increased communication and network integration with military assets could potentially see drone could carry extra payload( perhaps similarly in a weapons bay) that would be fired with control from an f-35 acting as the guidance with it’s advanced AESA or extra fuel to increase mission endurance. It’d probably be more helpful to have drones than use up space and unnecessary funds for a catobar system that would have significantly lesser sortie rates compared to the current layout due to the fact that the catobar layout would feature only 2 cats.
Look at how proud the locals are who have their small boats next to it. I just wish that the British government didn't try to save 10 cents on the dollar constructing it by building a modern day Kitty Hawk class of carrier. the Kitty hawk was a class of diesel powered super carriers that were built before the navy switched to nuclear. We were operating one of those up until the early 2000s.
Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators. Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
@subliminal juggernaut To some perhaps, to others, I'm just another Scottish voter with the choice of deciding the UK's future. Wonder if that new EU Army/Navy are looking for an expanded Atlantic presence, we could have some newly available capacity on our book's.
@@scottishbombolini7794 Aiding what the Nazis started and tried to do will not be aided by the Scottish public. SNP & the EU will be no more within 10 years. Both been exposed massively over the last 12 months. If you support any then you have a brain the size of a tadpole - Just Sayin.
@@Davo-007 And if the SNP do gain a mandate this May to hold an IndyRef, then what happens to that almost evangelical belief, of that any day soon collapse of the SNP? Even my tadpole sized brain can work that out, can you? Bringing up the Nazi's in regard's of Scottish Indy is crass, just highlights the desperation at whats coming soon.
Sub/Lt Philips "Left Hand down a bit Chief" "Left hand down a bit it is Sir!" "Starboard lookout here, I don't know if you've noticed, and I don't suppose you have........"
@@MrKeithblair Ahhhhh I see! rather I don’t because as you say they are stealth LOL . As a point of note before this covid crisis I went to Portsmouth for a few days and this beast was in dock having a new generator fitted and being drained, because of the interior leaking, it had 1 helicopter on the deck and when the press arrived the pilot would start it up for the local media. Apparently the only way “and I don’t know if this is true” but we are going to share the carrier with the good ole US of A to populate the flight deck. President Putin commented about the ship once stating it would make a nice target!
@@Marie579 Generally when a carrier enters it's home port like Portsmouth their jets will leave to go to a nearby airbase. It's the same for US carriers, easier to maintain them and you won't get complaints from the locals when jets are taking off in the middle of their city. Once the ship leaves and is underway again the jets will meet up with the carrier. It's very likely the case here too, makes it easier loading stores and ammunition before the aircraft arrive and take up space. Once they're actually out at sea they'll meet up.
@@paultanton4307 could not have happened, your timeline is all wrong. The decision to build what became the F35 was still years in the future the fly off of the X32 and F35 had not occured before the British were talking about building the replacement carter's of the Invincible class, in those days it was envisioned that it would be an angel ed deck catapult carrier. But as the years drug on they changed their minds, this doomed the British to have to depend on one kind of plane, a poor decision.
@@raywhitehead730 A british carrier with F-18/Typhoons would be fantastic, a proper fighter jet capable carrier with an angled deck & catapults, would be the pride of europe. Then we get this lump of shit that just carries glorified harriers off a goofy ski slope.
My old man worked on the Ark Royal in 1950s back then a carrier could probably hold it's own in a war situation but they are obsolete sitting targets, yes they kept people in work building them but that's all.
Didn’t know there was a armament depo on the Clyde, makes sense tho as the jetty in portsmouth harbour isn’t really designed for the carriers and I’m sure they won’t load ammunition from the north corner jetty..
@@davidhouseman4328 Thank you I was laid off from my aircraft work last year because of the Corona AIDS from China because most of my work was for Airbus but some of it was service parts for the F35 if the UK had more than 18 of them I would not have been laid off. Not all of the 18 are in the UK flying. Thank you
Los piratas llegando a puerto con el botín y cargando provisiones para continuar con sus fechorías en la mar. Pirates arriving at port with the loot and loading provisions to continue their misdeeds at sea.
@@rharvey751 Salty Spaniards like to cry about Britain in the Age of Sail. The sheer hypocrisy, sad irony and unfairness of this is hard to summarise though let's just make some observations, shall we? - England was minding it's own business when Spain began the Transatlantic Slave Trade alongside Portugal, and arrogantly halved the entire fucking world in between them in the insanely dumb Treaty of Tordesillas. The French, the English and the Dutch were later to the whole, 'explore the New World' thing by about half a century or so. In England's case, it merely began as English traders heading off into the Atlantic to get in on the action in the Caribbean most of all. Exploratory missions up and down the Americas by the likes of Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake are well-known in the public memory, though in truth it mainly began as basic trade prospecting in the Caribbean. The English were late to the party. And we're talking here about all trade and not specifically the slave trade. Sir Francis Drake became the first English slave trader, though had copied the idea from the Spanish whom he absolutely despised (the feeling was mutual; they called him 'El Draco', the Dragon) However, he hated them not for being the first in the New World - he hated them for how they treated English sailors. One time, Spanish galleons attacked English traders in the Caribbean and strung their crews up by their thumbs until they bled through pressure. They executed many English sailors, in the 1550's to 1580's. Sir Francis Drake upset them by fighting back and capturing Spanish treasure ships from South America. Sometimes entire Spanish galleons full of stolen, looted Aztec gold and Bolivian/Peruvian Silver, would be taken by the English. One ship in particular which Drake captured, had so many solid Silver ingots, that it was equivalent to three years worth of England's entire annual revenue at the time. Spain was greedily exploiting the entire territory it explored in the Americas, and mercilessly annihilated entire Native Peoples (see the actions of Spain on Hispaniola in the Caribbean - entire communities wiped out forever) Unlike the formative English, later united British Empire, the Spanish Empire was more destructive and outright saw the natives as merely barbarian heathens. Remember, this was a time when religion was the main motivating force behind many European powers, and a time when Spain saw England as a heretical nation because of what Henry VIII had done. If the Spanish hated the English for not being the same as them religiously, can you imagine what the 16th century conquistadors thought about the Aztecs? Aztecs, whom literally practiced blood sacrifices and ritual execution? The Spanish, paradigmatically, back then, would have been rather more horrified than we might realise in the 21st century. To them, the Aztecs and cultures like them were the most hideous affronts to the Catholic Church imaginable. It's hard to even put into words how much they would have hated them on sight. Remember, they hated the English for merely believing a different version of the overall Christian faith they still both belonged to. They saw red. The Spanish were tyrannical and brooked no difference of opinion - and Henry VIII had been little better, killing over 72,000 English and Irish people in purges in the British Isles, hunting down what he saw as dissent. Religion was a life and death matter back then. It wasn't optional or casual like today. Back then, you were either on side or simply the enemy, as far as the King, State and Church (a Church with insanely more influence and power than today, even over Kings and Emperors) were concerned. It was a time of commonplace Absolute Monarchy and commonplace religious, sectarian violence. Though England stained itself by participating in slavery, in later centuries, Britain did more than anyone else to stop it. - The British Empire by and large despised piracy. Queen Elizabeth I had turned a blind eye to privateering (legalised piracy) but so did Spain, France, the United Provinces (Holland) and others like Portugal. Privateering was just a tool in the arsenal of many powers and at a time when the English were hugely outnumbered and outgunned by the Spanish Armada, it made a lot of sense for England to accept alternative approaches to essentially 'even the odds'. Ironically, the British Empire would come to distance itself from privateering, outright hunting down open pirates and eventually banning all privateers, largely by the early 18th century. People seem to have a romanticised view of Pirates of the Caribbean with supposedly many pirate captains plying their ill-gotten gains in the Caribbean and the Atlantic in general for far longer than history tells us they could. In reality, Britain ruthlessly hunted down as many pirates as they could. Even the POTC films have to kind of admit this and show how the British are wiping them out and making their world change by the 3rd film. The British were everywhere, and now the most powerful after a series of wars with France and Spain, the British had zero need for privateers anymore - and had never actually liked unsanctioned pirates. Only the piracy/privateering of legally recognised ship captains was tolerated, and only they were for about a century and a half tops. I mean, when Sir Francis Drake returned home with enough silver or gold to float the economy for half a decade from a single voyage, it was hard for Queen Elizabeth I to be like, "NO BAD DRAKE BAD give the money back to Spain!" lol In reality, everyone including the literal Queen herself was like 'SHEEET that is a lotta money'. She always got a huge percentage as a rule anyway. Spain itself funded expeditions and ventures primarily to reap the benefits and it was mainly a financial as well as prestige based thing. They didn't give a shit about the well-being of the natives. They enslaved them in silver mines and tricked the last Emperor of the Aztecs (they cut his heart out at a truce talk they asked for, to doubly rub it in by using a form of execution the Aztecs used; the last Aztec Emperor just thought it was a legit peace talk; it was a bad mistake to trust the Spanish Empire) Brutality like this wasn't uniquely a Spanish Imperial trait, and I'm not claiming the British Empire was innocent of it's own injustices against native peoples. Of course it did bad things too. Still, the Spanish Empire was worse than most. The British Empire preferred to tax and establish trade ties with local peoples. There was exploitation and there were some heinous acts. However, in a broad sense, the British were about as 'progressive' as an Empire could be. We fucked things up from time to time but mainly Britain built her Empire on naval trade and naval power. Why kill people when you could tax them? There could be no British Empire without the Royal Navy. When the Spanish Armada arrogantly lurched towards Tudor England in 1588, the Spanish Empire had a near monopoly in the Americas, massive silver revenues (mainly traded with Imperial China and Europe in general) and the strongest navy in the world. England was a backwater, middling power with greater ambitions, yet constantly entangled in wars with France. The Spanish and Portuguese got the head start. However, the English Navy Royale as it was then called, had well-captained and crewed ships, built to Race-Galleon specifications. They could fire 3 shots for every 1 Spanish broadside, and though much smaller than the massive Spanish galleons, were nimbler and faster too. Spain was a bully and wanted to behead Queen Elizabeth I and most of our nobility. The English Army was outnumbered 4 to 1 by the army sent to invade, and had they landed, it would have been tough to defeat them. Spain had battle-hardened, experienced troops (so did England, just a lot fewer) It is funny how Spain cries wolf about English piracy, when the Spanish Empire literally ravaged the New World. Hypocritical doesn't cover it eh. Oh and, the British outlawed piracy, destroyed the Barbary Pirates (with Dutch help, and later American contributions) and banned the Transatlantic Slave trade after 1807, using the Royal Navy to force everyone including Spain and Brazil, France and the USA etc etc to STOP. The Royal Navy spent 50 years destroying the Transaltantic Slave Trade at massive cost to Britain. Spain would never have even come close to thinking of doing this, if left unchallenged. Spain is just upset Britain outgrew them and did more than they ever did. England = Robin Hood. Spain = the Sherif. P.S - Britain had wiped out most of the Pirates of the Caribbean by 1720. Edward Teach/Teague had been a menace especially to the British. By the time the British had caught Blackbeard, and killed him with the Royal Marines shooting and bayoneting him to death, the legendary pirate had even gone so far in his piratical career, as to attack an entire coastal city, Charlestown, a British city in the Thirteen Colonies. Corruption among British colonial officials in the Americas had constantly allowed Blackbeard to escape justice, but Blackbeard knew his time was running out. He planned to betray all of his own crew, when the British found him, fought him and killed him. He put up a ferocious fight too, taking many bayonet thrusts, sword slashes and musket shots to fall. He was a very tall, strong man for the time and built like a proverbial brick shithouse lol he was hard to kill and seen as demonic by most of the British. He was _eventually_ beheaded. It was claimed his headless corpse swam around his ship, the _Queen Anne's Revenge_ three times. The British Captain, tied his severed head to his own ship's bowsprit. Britain's defeat of Blackbeard, was a signal to all pirates that the game was over. There were no Jack Sparrow's or Barbossa's, in the real history. They just died or gave up. Britain crushed piracy.
Very Briefed and Summrized Ideas : We do not expect that england will not participate in any upcoming war in the Middle East region, especially in the Arabian Gulf and in our occupied Arabian peninsula , Therefore, we strongly expect that China, and the miserabe bolsheviks, they will not miss this opportunity to settle the accumulated historical accounts with the england and its colonies beside testing their weapon systems and the engagements tactics against first class naval state like england even dprk will not miss this opportunity for the same military tactical and operational reasons that will drive the Chinese and miserable bolsheviks undeclared involvement in this expected incoming war , If the iranian managed to destroy the english fleet ( and this is very likely to happen ) this mean the ending of england as strong naval power and it will put huge question on its survivability and existing as country in any incoming comprehensive war actually this expected incoming defeat of the english fleet will seal the fate of england along with its colonies stretching between new zealand and canada , because if the mighty english fleet were defeated on the hand of a regional power as the iran here as the subject of discussion , this mean england is much weaker if it have to defiance the expansion policies of china or the miserable bolsheviks and with it both nations geostrategic ambitions not to mention here the fate of britain as an island . For this, God willing, this carrier will be sent with her sister charles to early and permanent retirement at the bottom of the Arabian Gulf or the Arabian Sea . But If the iranians managed to seize this carrie to with the help of China and the miserable bolsheviks I suggest they rename it to HMS Robert Mugabe . ... Always And Forever May GOD Bless The Un United States Of HM Shninasios .....
@@davidhouseman4328 Believe me, the war will take place and these aircraft carriers will be sent to final retirement in the bottom of ocean or sea, but the question here remains is whether the war will be only confined geographically in the Arabic region , or whether it will extend to the british island with massive waves of ballistic and cruise missiles , in my opinion the war will not exclude the nato presence either in the european continent or around the world and many countries around the world that have old accounts with britain want to close it permanently, and this is an opportunity that cannot be missed to eliminate the english empire between new zealand and canada . And after redrawing its demographic and political map I suggest calling it Great Zimbabwe and annexing it to Zimbabwe although it may not be suitable for life or human activity , but administratively and sovereignty it can be attached to the Zimbabwe state , as I said apreviously britain is petty and tiny country and thus easily to be crushed ...
Originally planned to be a carrier with arresting gear, yep. Then the Royal Navy kept accepting its down grading by bureaucrat s.would have been better to have bought 3 more subs.
Factually incorrect, the CVF was designed and built as a STOVL carrier. It was said the carrier was to be future proof allowing it to be "easily" converted into a cat and traps one. Unfortunately that turned out to be nonsense
@@michaelsalt4565 May 1997, Strategic Defence Review, by the new Labour government, the new carrier was called the Super Queen Elizabeth, called for an angled deck carrier with arresting gear and a catapult. Pictures of the proposal were published, with a stated goal of having up to 50 fixed wing jets. As time went on, three competing proposals came about , to save money the government of Britain was lured by the makers of the F35 into settling for a less capable carrier. look it up.
@@raywhitehead730 factually incorrect. First of all the SDR was published in 1998. The review called for two carriers of a greater size with increased flexibility. No mention of cats and traps as you state.. The intention of the UK was always to procure the STOVL version of the JSF. So basically you are just talking nonsense.
Oh hello again Ray. You seem a tad obsessed with all this. And you aren't too good at facts either. The QEs were always designed as STOVL right from early iterations. CATOBAR was assessed in 2010 but General Dynamics in the US could not guarantee price, delivery let alone performance or reliability of EMALS and the UK's Converteam EMCATS was equally vague although more advanced. So was far too risky. So tell me how is that $18 Bn USS Gerald R Ford doing? Still taking up space in Norfolk? Shame those EMALS Cats still don't work reliably.
Cruise ships go port to port, and are a completely different beast from an aircraft carrier. Cruise ships can't deploy for weeks at a time over the horizon launching air strikes.
@@clewerhillroad No because they are not needed for 90% of the carriers duties which will be in the deep ocean. Cruise ships spend like 50% or more of their time in ports and close waters and as they run for profit they need to reduce tug and handling costs. I know because I worked the cruise liners in the '60s. Why do you people feel the need to find the smallest fault? Especially as you seem to like comparing apples to legs of lamb.
Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators. Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
I mean, it's pretty normal for a ship to produce smoke, something has to come out of it. Particularly if they're just getting underway and the engines are starting up. That doesn't look bad at all. Russia's carrier was famous for the black smoke that bellowed out of it.
It is only notably smokey after starting up and it's the equivalent of clearing it's throat. It is not comparable to the constant belching black-smoke of _Admiral Kuznetsov_ really. False equivalence. One runs smooth after some initial clearing, the other is just flat out Soviet era tech that is way messier.
Very small compared to other carriers, very terrible that On paper, the Royal Navy's has, 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard's small patrol ships. The US has 490 ships, this isn't the only problem, the british Army cant be called an Army anymore an Army is classed as 100,000 Men and Women , we have nowhere near that number.
Not very small even compared to a Nimitz, side by side they dont look that dissimilar. The US has about 5x the population having about 5x the ships seems about right. The idea an army needs to be 100,000 is just made up nonsense.
Big bragging but UK no longer the superpower and UK economy is not big enough to support a big RN and there are country that will never allow UK to become superpower again, remember the Suez crisis and some country block UK IMF request.
Impressive backdrop to an impressive warship
Even a ship as big as this gets dwarfed while sitting in a city but in landscape, she looks absolutely grand.
Beautiful ship with a fantastic crew Best wishes to you all
But drastically undermanned and using TA reservists......
Fantastic Footage and Vessel
Absolutely awesome 👏
What a picture! 😎
If it had not been for lockdown restrictions I would have gone to see her.
Same mate. That would have been awesome to see
When Nicola says it's OK, I'm going.
Any idea when it's due to leave? Cant believe I missed this coming up the Clyde. Last time I seen an aircraft carrier on the Clyde, it was the HMS Ark Royal. Couldn't believe how small it was.
@@randommadness1021 Any mere vessel will be dwarfed in that Great Landscape...
@@randommadness1021 No fly zone in the area terminates on Sunday, so I guess it would be leaving some time then
Knowing the area well she looks enormous and impressive wish I’d seen her from the road which runs parallel with the water ( Loch Long ) If you ever get the chance the drive from Helensburgh to Arrochar which passes this scene and Faslane is spectacular out of this world
Beast.
Lovely to see her on the clyde !!!!!!!!!!!! Best wishes to crew !!!!!!!!!!!
Extremely impressive BUT as I am watching I am thinking of my dad who passed at 92 last year. Before he came to Canada in the 50s, he was a shipwright in Aberdeen building tugboats.
Very nice QE Carrier - power right there
The original projection for the replacement carriers were envisioned by the UK Government in 1997, and that was published 1998. AT the time a Eurofighter Typhoon with a tailhook was studied, see Janes and Aviation Weekly. The original vision was for the Elisabeth to be angle decked with catapult. I was actively flying at the time sand was wondering what the Brit s were going to do without a Harrier. Also, originally only one carrier was envisioned to be built. All that other stuff came later, after the selection of the F35 fly-off. The Brit s would have been Much better served with their original intention.
You can have 7 of these for the cost of the tory Serco track and trace app. 🤬
That's exactly what I said to someone the other day! How can a computer system be just as costly as 7 of these?!?!
Yep, exactly my thoughts.
How on earth does an app cost seven times that of a capital warship.... oh I know, that’ll be the thousand pounds a day for every consultant and £6K per day for the “lead” consultant in loved in ripping the country off... I can safely say the CO of QE is not on that level of remuneration, nor is the First Sea Lord! I know who I’d trust to deliver and it’s not a PWC (other money making businesses are available) consultant.
Daylight robbery paid for by the British taxpayer - discuss...
Simply gorgeous - great British engineering.
Misread title, thought Queen Elizabeth was helping load munitions.
that would be the day, 😂
Any more defence cuts, and she will have to.
@@colinharbinson8284 😄😄
She’s storing her own for Harry and Meghan...
Just saying the ships not named after the current monarch, it’s named after a dreadnought
_Oh, the Queen Elizabeth is the power in these waters, true enough_
Beautiful.
She is beautiful in the sun picturesque
What is the purpose of two towers, we have never seen that on a carrier? She is almost as long as a US carrier, she i awesome!
Is this being stocked up by the munitions from Glen Douglas?
yes, and before some say's it the Jetty site is MOD Glenmallan and bunkers are at DM Glen Douglas.
@@mojoich2736 thank you.
March 2021, The Times and warzone report the British Royal Navy is likely to only buy 48 48 F35, Not a full loadout for the two carriers.
HMS Queen Elizabeth is very brave, the shape of the ship is very nice and unique
2021 and we've still built a ship with a visible exhaust...
Hardly Admiral Kuznetsov level, though.
@@robertcook2572 😂 true!
Lose the ski slope and extra island and call it ark royal or invincible, then it would be something special.
Looks like she's got her full complement of Phalanx CIWS with addition of the port bow one...good to see
If Scotland ever get independence. This will become even more of a historically documented TH-cam video. Never thought I'd ever type that either lol
To be consigned to history, a fitting end to the Union after 313 years.
@@scottishbombolini7794 not likely, Scotland cant afford to build a state from scratch, anyway. The royal navy wouldn't be going anywhere.
Just wondering but in the movie "The Cruel Sea" is this the same place that Jack Hawkins narrated over saying where the ship got armed up.
No that was Plymouth naval dock.. this is the holy loch.. in Argyll..
👍👍👍👍👍👍
I don't understand the closeness of this video, the Police issued a warning for people not to be coming near it within 4miles, even docked or in the estuary?
Well done for exposing the UK's tactical measures.
Where on the Clyde is this then?
And why is she not taking weapons aboard at Portsmouth, her home port?????
God Bless The Queen
scotland?
Awesome
Glorious
Great ship, shame the SNP does not think so!
I'm happy to see the SNP denigrate our armed forces, I don't want Scotland to leave the union and it shows the SNP in bad light.
I've seen it passing next to me!!!
You would have thought the exhaust emissions would be cleaner/better - or at least invisible to the eye
Probably water vapour, in the main
@@robertcook2572 yeah grey water vapour. 😏
Possibly running on auxiliary diesels while under tow, with the turbines shut down.
It needs heavy fuel oil, it should have been nuclear powered like french and American ones.
@@equaliser2265 Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators.
Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
Something outta Star Wars
Coming to Pacific.
That is a Don't mess with me Flagship.
Should have been built with catapult launch system .haven't had a really carrier since 1970s .eg old ark royal eagle .launching phantoms Buccaneers etc
Oh not that old chestnut. So tell me Admiral what CATOBAR system would you have fitted on an electric ship back in 2010?
And are you also saying Invincible and Hermes were not 'real' carriers'?
Those were the days
They are talking about an electric system and carrying drones, the steam catapults eat up a lot of space below decks that can be used for aircraft storage. She will be having a refit after this years deployment. The use of drones will be big in the future as the stealth aircraft will be reserved for special missions only in order to extend their life.
@@billydonaldson6483 Hence why there’s big prospects of a STOVL drone, something similar to F-35’s system, though less equipment and tech fitted compared to the actual jet itself.
Increased communication and network integration with military assets could potentially see drone could carry extra payload( perhaps similarly in a weapons bay) that would be fired with control from an f-35 acting as the guidance with it’s advanced AESA or extra fuel to increase mission endurance.
It’d probably be more helpful to have drones than use up space and unnecessary funds for a catobar system that would have significantly lesser sortie rates compared to the current layout due to the fact that the catobar layout would feature only 2 cats.
Having Phantoms was the peak of the royal navy. Down with ski slopes.
Look at how proud the locals are who have their small boats next to it.
I just wish that the British government didn't try to save 10 cents on the dollar constructing it by building a modern day Kitty Hawk class of carrier. the Kitty hawk was a class of diesel powered super carriers that were built before the navy switched to nuclear. We were operating one of those up until the early 2000s.
Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators.
Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
When does she leave?
The Press Release says she’s there until the end of the month.
Always get the saddos on here pulling stuff to bits cos they got nothing else to do
So proud to be British 😊
Why so many escorting craft ? Is this her first visit?
And just think If Scotland goes independent all these jobs will come back to English
Would take that deal, welcome to them.
@@scottishbombolini7794 + Over 7,000 work in ship building, others the UK armed Forces, Independence sounds great, how practical, well we will see.
@subliminal juggernaut To some perhaps, to others, I'm just another Scottish voter with the choice of deciding the UK's future.
Wonder if that new EU Army/Navy are looking for an expanded Atlantic presence, we could have some newly available capacity on our book's.
@@scottishbombolini7794 Aiding what the Nazis started and tried to do will not be aided by the Scottish public. SNP & the EU will be no more within 10 years. Both been exposed massively over the last 12 months. If you support any then you have a brain the size of a tadpole - Just Sayin.
@@Davo-007 And if the SNP do gain a mandate this May to hold an IndyRef, then what happens to that almost evangelical belief, of that any day soon collapse of the SNP? Even my tadpole sized brain can work that out, can you?
Bringing up the Nazi's in regard's of Scottish Indy is crass, just highlights the desperation at whats coming soon.
Are the submarines based here ?
Impressive size in the loch
How long is she here for?
She is a beauty and no mistake. Calm seas on deployment lads and lasses.
Helping to save new zealand...thanks
Sub/Lt Philips "Left Hand down a bit Chief"
"Left hand down a bit it is Sir!"
"Starboard lookout here, I don't know if you've noticed, and I don't suppose you have........"
Pray hard that there's no leaking this round.
HMS Prince of Fiasco still afloat???
German saltiness?
HMS. Prince of Whales @(°|°)@
I live right beside here. Anyone know if it's still there?
If you live right beside here then why can’t u see it?
Look at ALL those aircraft on that aircraft carrier!
Are you trying to make a point? Is it trying to do something that would require aircraft?
They're stealth aircraft, that's why you can't see them!
@@MrKeithblair Ahhhhh I see! rather I don’t because as you say they are stealth LOL . As a point of note before this covid crisis I went to Portsmouth for a few days and this beast was in dock having a new generator fitted and being drained, because of the interior leaking, it had 1 helicopter on the deck and when the press arrived the pilot would start it up for the local media. Apparently the only way “and I don’t know if this is true” but we are going to share the carrier with the good ole US of A to populate the flight deck. President Putin commented about the ship once stating it would make a nice target!
@@Marie579 Generally when a carrier enters it's home port like Portsmouth their jets will leave to go to a nearby airbase. It's the same for US carriers, easier to maintain them and you won't get complaints from the locals when jets are taking off in the middle of their city.
Once the ship leaves and is underway again the jets will meet up with the carrier.
It's very likely the case here too, makes it easier loading stores and ammunition before the aircraft arrive and take up space. Once they're actually out at sea they'll meet up.
But it's true the British Merlin is a good helicopter.
Merlin is a UK Italian helicopter.
Construction at two plants one in England
navylookout dot com, specifically mentions the the original planning of the Queen Elizabeth to have a Typhoon or US Navy F-18.
The Plan was F35b or F35c,a Naval Typhoon was a non-starter and the F18 while good is still a generation behind the F35.
@@paultanton4307 could not have happened, your timeline is all wrong. The decision to build what became the F35 was still years in the future the fly off of the X32 and F35 had not occured before the British were talking about building the replacement carter's of the Invincible class, in those days it was envisioned that it would be an angel ed deck catapult carrier. But as the years drug on they changed their minds, this doomed the British to have to depend on one kind of plane, a poor decision.
@@raywhitehead730 A british carrier with F-18/Typhoons would be fantastic, a proper fighter jet capable carrier with an angled deck & catapults, would be the pride of europe. Then we get this lump of shit that just carries glorified harriers off a goofy ski slope.
And check for leaks.....
And we've got two like that! Rule Britannia
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Mean looking fighting machine
RNAD Coulport.
These carriers seem to be tied up more than they are at sea
Lord Mayor of Splott+ I'm not sure where you get your information from, but clearly your not well informed.
My old man worked on the Ark Royal in 1950s back then a carrier could probably hold it's own in a war situation but they are obsolete sitting targets, yes they kept people in work building them but that's all.
Didn’t know there was a armament depo on the Clyde, makes sense tho as the jetty in portsmouth harbour isn’t really designed for the carriers and I’m sure they won’t load ammunition from the north corner jetty..
Yes it's a NATO cache in a sea loch to the west
It needs the Queen Elizabeth emblem on the front of the ski jump..it looks unfinished.
Is it true your reducing the number of f35s were buying?
That would be fucking stupid I have already been laid off because we only have 18 for the UK so far ! :(
the defence review is due tomorrow.
@@davidhouseman4328 Thank you I was laid off from my aircraft work last year because of the Corona AIDS from China because most of my work was for Airbus but some of it was service parts for the F35 if the UK had more than 18 of them I would not have been laid off. Not all of the 18 are in the UK flying. Thank you
I wouldn’t be surprised. Whatever flavour of government we have, they always try to do defence on the cheap
@@TommyBahama84 Yes it is sad and worse when we have to beg from others for help like when the Nimrods were cancelled. :(
If that's the river Clyde then my.............
It is Loch Long, a sea loch which leads directly to the Firth of Clyde
Loch Long at Glen Douglas. It is perhaps 70 minutes steaming/sailing from the Firth of Clyde heading North.
About time we started rebuilding and adding to the #UK fleet,...
we need a defence towards the Chinese #CCP #PLA threats, that will come!!!
Impressive! But I can see a weak point - destroy tugboats and it is useless :)
Los piratas llegando a puerto con el botín y cargando provisiones para continuar con sus fechorías en la mar.
Pirates arriving at port with the loot and loading provisions to continue their misdeeds at sea.
Knob!
@@rharvey751 Salty Spaniards like to cry about Britain in the Age of Sail. The sheer hypocrisy, sad irony and unfairness of this is hard to summarise though let's just make some observations, shall we?
- England was minding it's own business when Spain began the Transatlantic Slave Trade alongside Portugal, and arrogantly halved the entire fucking world in between them in the insanely dumb Treaty of Tordesillas. The French, the English and the Dutch were later to the whole, 'explore the New World' thing by about half a century or so. In England's case, it merely began as English traders heading off into the Atlantic to get in on the action in the Caribbean most of all. Exploratory missions up and down the Americas by the likes of Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake are well-known in the public memory, though in truth it mainly began as basic trade prospecting in the Caribbean.
The English were late to the party. And we're talking here about all trade and not specifically the slave trade. Sir Francis Drake became the first English slave trader, though had copied the idea from the Spanish whom he absolutely despised (the feeling was mutual; they called him 'El Draco', the Dragon) However, he hated them not for being the first in the New World - he hated them for how they treated English sailors. One time, Spanish galleons attacked English traders in the Caribbean and strung their crews up by their thumbs until they bled through pressure.
They executed many English sailors, in the 1550's to 1580's. Sir Francis Drake upset them by fighting back and capturing Spanish treasure ships from South America. Sometimes entire Spanish galleons full of stolen, looted Aztec gold and Bolivian/Peruvian Silver, would be taken by the English. One ship in particular which Drake captured, had so many solid Silver ingots, that it was equivalent to three years worth of England's entire annual revenue at the time. Spain was greedily exploiting the entire territory it explored in the Americas, and mercilessly annihilated entire Native Peoples (see the actions of Spain on Hispaniola in the Caribbean - entire communities wiped out forever) Unlike the formative English, later united British Empire, the Spanish Empire was more destructive and outright saw the natives as merely barbarian heathens.
Remember, this was a time when religion was the main motivating force behind many European powers, and a time when Spain saw England as a heretical nation because of what Henry VIII had done. If the Spanish hated the English for not being the same as them religiously, can you imagine what the 16th century conquistadors thought about the Aztecs? Aztecs, whom literally practiced blood sacrifices and ritual execution? The Spanish, paradigmatically, back then, would have been rather more horrified than we might realise in the 21st century. To them, the Aztecs and cultures like them were the most hideous affronts to the Catholic Church imaginable. It's hard to even put into words how much they would have hated them on sight. Remember, they hated the English for merely believing a different version of the overall Christian faith they still both belonged to. They saw red.
The Spanish were tyrannical and brooked no difference of opinion - and Henry VIII had been little better, killing over 72,000 English and Irish people in purges in the British Isles, hunting down what he saw as dissent. Religion was a life and death matter back then. It wasn't optional or casual like today. Back then, you were either on side or simply the enemy, as far as the King, State and Church (a Church with insanely more influence and power than today, even over Kings and Emperors) were concerned. It was a time of commonplace Absolute Monarchy and commonplace religious, sectarian violence. Though England stained itself by participating in slavery, in later centuries, Britain did more than anyone else to stop it.
- The British Empire by and large despised piracy. Queen Elizabeth I had turned a blind eye to privateering (legalised piracy) but so did Spain, France, the United Provinces (Holland) and others like Portugal. Privateering was just a tool in the arsenal of many powers and at a time when the English were hugely outnumbered and outgunned by the Spanish Armada, it made a lot of sense for England to accept alternative approaches to essentially 'even the odds'. Ironically, the British Empire would come to distance itself from privateering, outright hunting down open pirates and eventually banning all privateers, largely by the early 18th century. People seem to have a romanticised view of Pirates of the Caribbean with supposedly many pirate captains plying their ill-gotten gains in the Caribbean and the Atlantic in general for far longer than history tells us they could.
In reality, Britain ruthlessly hunted down as many pirates as they could. Even the POTC films have to kind of admit this and show how the British are wiping them out and making their world change by the 3rd film. The British were everywhere, and now the most powerful after a series of wars with France and Spain, the British had zero need for privateers anymore - and had never actually liked unsanctioned pirates. Only the piracy/privateering of legally recognised ship captains was tolerated, and only they were for about a century and a half tops. I mean, when Sir Francis Drake returned home with enough silver or gold to float the economy for half a decade from a single voyage, it was hard for Queen Elizabeth I to be like, "NO BAD DRAKE BAD give the money back to Spain!" lol In reality, everyone including the literal Queen herself was like 'SHEEET that is a lotta money'. She always got a huge percentage as a rule anyway.
Spain itself funded expeditions and ventures primarily to reap the benefits and it was mainly a financial as well as prestige based thing. They didn't give a shit about the well-being of the natives. They enslaved them in silver mines and tricked the last Emperor of the Aztecs (they cut his heart out at a truce talk they asked for, to doubly rub it in by using a form of execution the Aztecs used; the last Aztec Emperor just thought it was a legit peace talk; it was a bad mistake to trust the Spanish Empire) Brutality like this wasn't uniquely a Spanish Imperial trait, and I'm not claiming the British Empire was innocent of it's own injustices against native peoples. Of course it did bad things too.
Still, the Spanish Empire was worse than most. The British Empire preferred to tax and establish trade ties with local peoples. There was exploitation and there were some heinous acts. However, in a broad sense, the British were about as 'progressive' as an Empire could be. We fucked things up from time to time but mainly Britain built her Empire on naval trade and naval power. Why kill people when you could tax them? There could be no British Empire without the Royal Navy.
When the Spanish Armada arrogantly lurched towards Tudor England in 1588, the Spanish Empire had a near monopoly in the Americas, massive silver revenues (mainly traded with Imperial China and Europe in general) and the strongest navy in the world. England was a backwater, middling power with greater ambitions, yet constantly entangled in wars with France. The Spanish and Portuguese got the head start. However, the English Navy Royale as it was then called, had well-captained and crewed ships, built to Race-Galleon specifications. They could fire 3 shots for every 1 Spanish broadside, and though much smaller than the massive Spanish galleons, were nimbler and faster too. Spain was a bully and wanted to behead Queen Elizabeth I and most of our nobility. The English Army was outnumbered 4 to 1 by the army sent to invade, and had they landed, it would have been tough to defeat them. Spain had battle-hardened, experienced troops (so did England, just a lot fewer)
It is funny how Spain cries wolf about English piracy, when the Spanish Empire literally ravaged the New World. Hypocritical doesn't cover it eh. Oh and, the British outlawed piracy, destroyed the Barbary Pirates (with Dutch help, and later American contributions) and banned the Transatlantic Slave trade after 1807, using the Royal Navy to force everyone including Spain and Brazil, France and the USA etc etc to STOP. The Royal Navy spent 50 years destroying the Transaltantic Slave Trade at massive cost to Britain. Spain would never have even come close to thinking of doing this, if left unchallenged. Spain is just upset Britain outgrew them and did more than they ever did.
England = Robin Hood. Spain = the Sherif.
P.S - Britain had wiped out most of the Pirates of the Caribbean by 1720. Edward Teach/Teague had been a menace especially to the British. By the time the British had caught Blackbeard, and killed him with the Royal Marines shooting and bayoneting him to death, the legendary pirate had even gone so far in his piratical career, as to attack an entire coastal city, Charlestown, a British city in the Thirteen Colonies. Corruption among British colonial officials in the Americas had constantly allowed Blackbeard to escape justice, but Blackbeard knew his time was running out. He planned to betray all of his own crew, when the British found him, fought him and killed him. He put up a ferocious fight too, taking many bayonet thrusts, sword slashes and musket shots to fall.
He was a very tall, strong man for the time and built like a proverbial brick shithouse lol he was hard to kill and seen as demonic by most of the British. He was _eventually_ beheaded. It was claimed his headless corpse swam around his ship, the _Queen Anne's Revenge_ three times. The British Captain, tied his severed head to his own ship's bowsprit. Britain's defeat of Blackbeard, was a signal to all pirates that the game was over. There were no Jack Sparrow's or Barbossa's, in the real history. They just died or gave up. Britain crushed piracy.
Go for Global Britain
Very Briefed and Summrized Ideas :
We do not expect that england will not participate in any upcoming war in the Middle East region, especially in the Arabian Gulf and in our occupied Arabian peninsula , Therefore, we strongly expect that China, and the miserabe bolsheviks, they will not miss this opportunity to settle the accumulated historical accounts with the england and its colonies beside testing their weapon systems and the engagements tactics against first class naval state like england even dprk will not miss this opportunity for the same military tactical and operational reasons that will drive the Chinese and miserable bolsheviks undeclared involvement in this expected incoming war ,
If the iranian managed to destroy the english fleet ( and this is very likely to happen ) this mean the ending of england as strong naval power and it will put huge question on its survivability and existing as country in any incoming comprehensive war actually this expected incoming defeat of the english fleet will seal the fate of england along with its colonies stretching between new zealand and canada ,
because if the mighty english fleet were defeated on the hand of a regional power as the iran here as the subject of discussion , this mean england is much weaker if it have to defiance the expansion policies of china or the miserable bolsheviks and with it both nations geostrategic ambitions not to mention here the fate of britain as an island .
For this, God willing, this carrier will be sent with her sister charles to early and permanent retirement at the bottom of the Arabian Gulf or the Arabian Sea .
But If the iranians managed to seize this carrie to with the help of China and the miserable bolsheviks I suggest they rename it to HMS Robert Mugabe .
... Always And Forever May GOD Bless The Un United States Of HM Shninasios .....
If
@@davidhouseman4328 Believe me, the war will take place and these aircraft carriers will be sent to final retirement in the bottom of ocean or sea, but the question here remains is whether the war will be only confined geographically in the Arabic region , or whether it will extend to the british island with massive waves of ballistic and cruise missiles , in my opinion the war will not exclude the nato presence either in the european continent or around the world and many countries around the world that have old accounts with britain want to close it permanently, and this is an opportunity that cannot be missed to eliminate the english empire between new zealand and canada . And after redrawing its demographic and political map I suggest calling it Great Zimbabwe and annexing it to Zimbabwe although it may not be suitable for life or human activity , but administratively and sovereignty it can be attached to the Zimbabwe state , as I said apreviously britain is petty and tiny country and thus easily to be crushed ...
I see SERCO sponsor the tugs...
HMS QE's a grand bird though - would Not like too see her heading my way wearing her angry face!
Wonder if Moanalot is charging for these munitions ??? 👺🤡👻🎃
Kranky lol
W So when is the other one getting sold to Brazil or India? Or for scrap.
2060?
This one's for you China 🎯
DF21 can't wait
your stupid DF21 doesn't work lollllllll
😂😂😂🤣😂😂😂
smoking a bit out of the chimney - dodgy fuel?!
Originally planned to be a carrier with arresting gear, yep. Then the Royal Navy kept accepting its down grading by bureaucrat s.would have been better to have bought 3 more subs.
Because BEA systems want to sell the more expensive F35 B version, stuff the ability to operate other support aircraft as well.
Factually incorrect, the CVF was designed and built as a STOVL carrier. It was said the carrier was to be future proof allowing it to be "easily" converted into a cat and traps one. Unfortunately that turned out to be nonsense
@@michaelsalt4565 May 1997, Strategic Defence Review, by the new Labour government, the new carrier was called the Super Queen Elizabeth, called for an angled deck carrier with arresting gear and a catapult. Pictures of the proposal were published, with a stated goal of having up to 50 fixed wing jets. As time went on, three competing proposals came about , to save money the government of Britain was lured by the makers of the F35 into settling for a less capable carrier. look it up.
@@raywhitehead730 factually incorrect. First of all the SDR was published in 1998. The review called for two carriers of a greater size with increased flexibility. No mention of cats and traps as you state.. The intention of the UK was always to procure the STOVL version of the JSF.
So basically you are just talking nonsense.
Oh hello again Ray. You seem a tad obsessed with all this. And you aren't too good at facts either. The QEs were always designed as STOVL right from early iterations. CATOBAR was assessed in 2010 but General Dynamics in the US could not guarantee price, delivery let alone performance or reliability of EMALS and the UK's Converteam EMCATS was equally vague although more advanced. So was far too risky.
So tell me how is that $18 Bn USS Gerald R Ford doing? Still taking up space in Norfolk? Shame those EMALS Cats still don't work reliably.
Shes looking a bit smokey.
Sad in this day and age when cruise ships operate most places without tugs, this 'baby' needs them!!!
How often do cruise ships load munitions?
no azipods or bow thrusters...
Cruise ships go port to port, and are a completely different beast from an aircraft carrier. Cruise ships can't deploy for weeks at a time over the horizon launching air strikes.
@@clewerhillroad No because they are not needed for 90% of the carriers duties which will be in the deep ocean. Cruise ships spend like 50% or more of their time in ports and close waters and as they run for profit they need to reduce tug and handling costs. I know because I worked the cruise liners in the '60s.
Why do you people feel the need to find the smallest fault? Especially as you seem to like comparing apples to legs of lamb.
Give ‘em hell
How long before she's sold to India?
Made a mistake having Diesel engines. Should have gone nuclear
Nuclear has too many problems, a lot of ports won't allow nuclear powered ships. She runs on Kerosene, gas turbine generators and electric propulsion motors, the same fuel as the jets, with some diesel for the auxiliary generators.
Even nuclear powered ships have to be replenished at sea, so it's just as easy to refuel at the same time.
So much for a no fly zone...just hope the Russians are not watching!
I wonder if they have potholes all over her ( I'm NOT a woke person!!) deck as they do in the UK?
All that smoke coming out of a brand new ship and they were complaining about the Russians ?
I mean, it's pretty normal for a ship to produce smoke, something has to come out of it. Particularly if they're just getting underway and the engines are starting up. That doesn't look bad at all.
Russia's carrier was famous for the black smoke that bellowed out of it.
It is only notably smokey after starting up and it's the equivalent of clearing it's throat. It is not comparable to the constant belching black-smoke of _Admiral Kuznetsov_ really. False equivalence. One runs smooth after some initial clearing, the other is just flat out Soviet era tech that is way messier.
Very small compared to other carriers, very terrible that On paper, the Royal Navy's has, 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard's small patrol ships. The US has 490 ships, this isn't the only problem, the british Army cant be called an Army anymore an Army is classed as 100,000 Men and Women , we have nowhere near that number.
Not very small even compared to a Nimitz, side by side they dont look that dissimilar. The US has about 5x the population having about 5x the ships seems about right. The idea an army needs to be 100,000 is just made up nonsense.
Waste of public money
omkarkawlekar 15may1991omey
Billions wasted in this fcking thing .
boats too clean - take that out to sea and break it in
Big bragging but UK no longer the superpower and UK economy is not big enough to support a big RN and there are country that will never allow UK to become superpower again, remember the Suez crisis and some country block UK IMF request.
Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved, John 3:16, KJV.