Californian Reacts | How powerful is HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 478

  • @kevinworrall231
    @kevinworrall231 2 ปีที่แล้ว +79

    So proud of the Royal Navy and all our forces

  • @bobgraham398
    @bobgraham398 2 ปีที่แล้ว +175

    When you look at a map of the world, the size of countries like the USA & Russia & China. And then there is this little island who ruled the seas for centuries. No doubt. The Royal Navy were the atomic bomb of bygone times. No one could match them. France & Spain tried but were no match.

    • @senianns9522
      @senianns9522 2 ปีที่แล้ว +39

      Just take a glass bottom boat around the coast of the UK if you want to see the 'Spanish Armada'!

    • @roysimmons3549
      @roysimmons3549 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      UK not tiny. Seventh biggest island.

    • @ninjarooneil7866
      @ninjarooneil7866 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@roysimmons3549 tiny compared to US and China. Florida alone is more than half the size of UK.

    • @Stand663
      @Stand663 2 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      And guess who started the Royal Navy. ?
      Elizabeth I

    • @normanrussell5526
      @normanrussell5526 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@Stand663 I think it was Henry VIII.

  • @Markus117d
    @Markus117d 2 ปีที่แล้ว +94

    The two island design is because of several reasons.
    The exhaust of the two gas turbines is vented through the top of them. And because the two gas turbines are separated from eachother in case of battle damage, Each turbine needs it's own exhaust. One per island.
    It gives the ship navigating officers a good view of the ships bow from the bridge, Making manoeuvring the ship easier, While the flight ops staff have a clear centralised view of the flight deck. For controlling flight operations.
    Splitting them into two separate islands, Instead of one long island. allows an Aircraft elevator to be positioned in between them. Better using the available space.
    Either island can assume the function of the other, In case of technical issues or battle damage. The separation makes it much harder to take them both out of action with a missile for example.
    The two main radar's are mounted on them ( one on each ) this separation giving each radar a better view and results in less signal interference from the other one..
    😄👍

    • @senianns9522
      @senianns9522 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Two exhausts into one exit provide a larger heat signature!

    • @Markus117d
      @Markus117d 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@senianns9522One exhaust from one turbine, But two turbines results in two exhausts..One at the back of each island..

    • @senianns9522
      @senianns9522 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Markus117d Exactly ! They don't want a large heat signature!

    • @Markus117d
      @Markus117d 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@senianns9522 Ah, I understand, Thought you were thinking they were combined and pointing out that would be a bad idea, Not that you were pointing out that's one reason why they arent.. 👍

    • @Stand663
      @Stand663 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Very interesting.

  • @Radictor44
    @Radictor44 2 ปีที่แล้ว +32

    The QE Carrier class is a beaut, so proud of them, and I hope they keep pushing the very edges of technological capability

    • @stickyrickify
      @stickyrickify 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I like to see them when they are in Portsmouth

  • @adamcottrell6454
    @adamcottrell6454 2 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    To be a relevant navy, particularly in the 21st century, you need to be a blue water navy. With the HMS QE carriers the Royal navy definitely have that. With the Type 45s getting their midlife upgrades & the Type 26/31 frigates coming online during the next 5/10 years, the RN will operate one of the most advanced navies in the world. Couple that with the F35Bs, Merlin, Wildcats, Apaches, Boeing P8s, E7 Wedgetails, the fleet air arm will be pretty devastating.

    • @azzajames7661
      @azzajames7661 ปีที่แล้ว

      Also, over 15% of the F35 is made in Great Britain.
      The fingerprints of British ingenuity can be found on dozens of the F-35's key components. From the Martin-Baker ejection seat to the Cobham refuelling probe to the BAE Systems-built horizontal tails, every F-35 has British parts incorporated from nose to tail.
      The software team at the BAE site in Samlesbury, Lancashire, has worked alongside Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to deliver the latest software updates throughout the history of the programme. We understand that there are more than eight million lines of code required for full operational capability. Recently, they worked on Block 3i, which equips the aircraft with 89% of the software code required.

  • @jasonfernee2401
    @jasonfernee2401 2 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    After a few years off it was great to see the Royal Navy return to full Blue Water Navy strength. I'm not sure you are aware, but ALL Royal Navy ships are built in British dockyards and always have been.

    • @wessexdruid7598
      @wessexdruid7598 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The latest RFAs were all built in S.Korea.

    • @robinwilson2238
      @robinwilson2238 ปีที่แล้ว

      The US NAVY loaned the UK an entire strike group before you guys started back building for training. Lets not get it twisted. Look it up. All American ships are built in America.

    • @wessexdruid7598
      @wessexdruid7598 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@robinwilson2238 "The US NAVY loaned the UK an entire strike group before you guys started back building for training. Lets not get it twisted. Look it up."
      I tried - and found nothing. Are you taking about the 10 USMC F-35s that flew with QNLZ, as part of a UK strike wing, on her first operational tour?
      Perhaps you could provide a link... It seems highly unlikely that the USN loaned the UK ships and crew.
      Where do you think the ships of the Royal Navy are built?

    • @jasonfernee2401
      @jasonfernee2401 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@wessexdruid7598 Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not Royal Navy ships.

    • @wessexdruid7598
      @wessexdruid7598 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jasonfernee2401 Did I ever say they were? But the RN relies on the RFA.

  • @Bob10009
    @Bob10009 2 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    One of the greatest features of the class is that whereas a US super carrier needs a crew of 5,000, these only require 1,600 including full flight crew. This is due to automated systems for things such as weapons transfer from below deck to the flight deck - it is like a big Jukebox selecting records. This has the benefit of leaving space on board for a complement of up to 250 Royal Marines to enable amphibious deployment. It means the carriers can perform the same roles as both USN and USMC carriers in one vessel. It’s on board power generation is also enough to power a whole town when used for disaster relief. True multi role.

    • @cliveengel5744
      @cliveengel5744 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nonsense the US carriers operate 4 times the number of Planes and carry vast amounts of Weapons, Aviation Fuels and Stores - also they can resupply by Grumman Greyhounds at long distances. The UK Carriers carries only 18 planes and no Fixed wing aux aircraft.
      The Uk carries need to fuels every 7 days - it is more like a Coastal Carrier!
      Even the French Carrier carried the Grumman Awacs and Greyhounds!

    • @Bob10009
      @Bob10009 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@cliveengel5744 where do you get this crap ? 😂 The QE class will carry between 24 and 48 F35b plus Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, Chinook as role demands. They can carry up to 72 F35B if really needed - but probably never will. The lack of cat and trap also means less breakdowns and launch/recovery delays. This means a US super carrier only launches at twice the sortie rate even with many more aircraft. US carriers need to take on aviation fuel, food etc just as often as the QE class, the British carriers simply take on fuel for the ship at the same time whilst underway. They have their own fleet replenishment ships. If they are “coastal carriers” how come they have already deployed to Australia, the arctic circle and….the USA ?

    • @cliveengel5744
      @cliveengel5744 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Bob10009 Knock out the Fleet Auxiliaries and the QE is kaput it will have to refuel in Malta. Remind me why the UK needs a Carrier - Protect its Trade Routes from the Colonies?

    • @Bob10009
      @Bob10009 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@cliveengel5744 . Knock out USN support ships and their carriers are kaput too, the difference is, the QE can actually birth at ports all around the world, unlike USN super carriers. We need carriers for the same reason that the US needs carriers, to protect our nation and our interests around the world.

    • @cliveengel5744
      @cliveengel5744 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Bob10009 - And what are they going to do around the world? the UK Does not have any territories around the world!
      What are the purpose of these ships?
      They cannot get into the Black Sea or into the Arctic, or the Arabian Gulf or the Pacific. Looks like they can patrol around the Lessor and Greater British Isles!

  • @samhawkes6597
    @samhawkes6597 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Agreed. Seeing a complete aircraft carrier strike group projects so much power

  • @clemstevenson
    @clemstevenson 2 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    We need a strong defence, because there are crazy people out there (not mentioning any names) who only understand force.

  • @richt71
    @richt71 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    HMS Queen Elizabeth has just arrived in Norfolk navy base, Viginia, USA. Watched a feed of it docking yesterday I think.

  • @andrewdilworth9180
    @andrewdilworth9180 2 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    A little land locked island it is ,but the British people are made of steel hearts of lions a very brave race of people.ask Argentina what happens when you try to take them on

    • @fridarey
      @fridarey ปีที่แล้ว +6

      landlocked island?

    • @gobalmighty7463
      @gobalmighty7463 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@fridarey I think that just broke my brain!

    • @matthewreade1624
      @matthewreade1624 ปีที่แล้ว

      How can you be a landlocked island? Is this a new military feature?

    • @MisterChrisInTheUK
      @MisterChrisInTheUK ปีที่แล้ว

      The original example of FAFO :)

    • @moiradalgleish
      @moiradalgleish ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Someone on Quora asked: 'Why is the U.K. so incapable of protecting itself?'
      Chris Murphy replied:
      What a fantastic question. No sarcasm at all. I'm an Aussie, and the Brits, as small as the land mass they occupy, are the last people I would want to fight with. The last. I'll deal with crocodiles, over a tonne, I'll deal with kangeroos who will punch and kick your teeth in, not to mention the Kiwis (New Zealand).
      You don't want to start a fight with the UK. Seriously. You really don't. They have a don't care attitude towards you. Stiff upper lip if you will. Gentlemanly, if you please. That attitude will be maintained until the last. The very last. They are the only group who ruled the world, and then gave it back.
      England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland.
      I salute you.

  • @justme1111
    @justme1111 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    The two towers can work independent of each other so if one gets damaged in combat or forms some ok d of fault then the ship is not compromised and can continue to operate

  • @generaladvance5812
    @generaladvance5812 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    5:26 Front is ship operations stuff like steering & the back is for conducting flight operations. The idea is supposed to be redundancy so if one tower is destroyed, the other can still operate both roles.

  • @Falney
    @Falney ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I am tremendously proud of our Navy. Even if it is only a whisper of what it once was in size, it certainly makes up for in quality.
    Also, I would like to see, at some point. A dedicated drone carrier. In a ship that size, can you imagine how many drones they could carry? You could inundate and overwhelm most, if not all, anti air systems without the loss of pilots.

  • @Scaleyback317
    @Scaleyback317 ปีที่แล้ว

    I see both of these carriers as they sail by where I live to and from their duty stations. Magnificent sight. Ocassionly see foriegn craft go by also. Very happy to see our allies visiting Portsmouth.

  • @bungietwab4868
    @bungietwab4868 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What a combo. F-35's and this Carrier. Stunning😍

  • @stephenpeat3885
    @stephenpeat3885 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    QE carrier can take 75 aircraft max and in the future a nose extention could be added to add another 100+ metres to the deck to take the future Tempest fighter.

  • @Axispaw1
    @Axispaw1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    She’s actually 70,600 tonnes with the PoW slightly larger at 75,000 tonnes.

  • @specialkgb1980
    @specialkgb1980 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Her majesty truly is majestic

  • @TheLastCrumb.
    @TheLastCrumb. 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Let’s not forget the most important thing…. The dam thing has a pub on board 🎉. Imagine getting pissed and joyriding an f35 😮

  • @marktierney2117
    @marktierney2117 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    first tower is command of the ship and navigation, second tower is primarily for take off and landing of the aircraft, they are both able to take on each others duties if one is disabled apparently

  • @robertjohnson-taylor100
    @robertjohnson-taylor100 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Your right it is a beautiful looking ship. Size does mean the biggest or the most expensive, the question is does it meet the planed role. Also the little ships Eg HMS Spey and Tamar

  • @wendyharbon7290
    @wendyharbon7290 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are both famous names in the Royal Navy, in WW2 there were Battleships which were named HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was actually a Dreadnought Battleship served in WW1 launched in 1913.
    HMS Prince of Wales was a second world war battleship, launched in 1939 and the 5th Royal Navy ship to be named the Prince of Wales too.
    What the Royal Navy needs, is a third Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier.
    With each RN Aircraft Carrier, with a full Air Wing of 36 F-35B's and 12 Merlin HM.2's, plus 4 Wildcats and 4 Apache AH.64E's, maybe 12 SVTOL Unmanned Combat Reconnaissance Attack Vehicle (UCRAV's) and 2 or 4 Osprey CMV-22B's Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) tilt-rotors, or maybe a pair of Chinook MH-47F too.
    Which would allow for two Aircraft Carriers, to always be available, one in the North and/or South Altantic Ocean, the other available for Indian and Pacific Ocean deployment too.
    However, this would mean increasing Royal Navy Destroyers, Frigates and Nuclear Fleet Attack Submarine numbers too, as well as Fleet Auxiliary support vessels numbers too.
    At least 9 to 12 Destroyers ( keeping 3 to 6 Type 45's & 6 new Type 83's), plus 20 to 24 Frigates ( 10 new Type 26's, + 5 to 6 new Type 31's & 5 to 6 new Type 32's) too, also 2 to 5 more new Astute Class Submarines as well, then 4 to 6 new Auxiliary support vessels, all by 2040 too.
    That 41 new major warships and Auxiliary support vessel, plus a third Aircraft Carrier and at least 108 new F-35B's Lighting ll fighters, built and purchased by 2040?
    The only problem is the present Conservative Government Leadership in London, are too busy play musical chairs over who will be the next Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers too.
    To provide the necessary funding properly the UK Armed Forces really need now?
    Because of Putin's illegal war on Ukraine 🇺🇦, plus the Chinese Government and Naval Forces trying to take over the South China Sea, also Eastern half the Indian Ocean, plus most of the Pacific Ocean it seems too!
    It is not only the Royal Navy need investment in new naval hardware and warships, the RAF and FAA plus AAC all need new combat aircraft and helicopters plus combat drones too.
    Then the British Army, needs new tanks, armoured vehicles, self-propelled and towed artillery, rocket launchers and air defence systems too.
    Lastly the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force, need tens of thousands new sailors, soldiers, Marines and aircrews too,
    The UK Government defence cuts in personnel, for the last 12 years, have reduce HM Forces to an all time low, that has to be turned around in the next 5 to 10 years now too!
    To face a new Cold War with Russians and especially with Chinese too, which Nato Allies, plus their international partners will all be facing now!
    The Royal Navy once rule the Waves, now the Royal Navy with Nato Navies, have to rule the waves, for the peace of the world now too!

  • @jamesrodrigues7391
    @jamesrodrigues7391 ปีที่แล้ว

    The forward tower is for ship navigation and the second tower is for flight deck/aircraft control ATC.

  • @azzajames7661
    @azzajames7661 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It was Great Britain (RN) That made the very first aircraft carrier and made it with the single island but the Royal Navy have now upgraded to a two-island design.
    “On 7 May 1913 the Royal Navy commissioned its first aviation ship. The old light cruiser, Hermes, launched in 1898, was converted to a seaplane carrier. Canvas shelters to hold aircraft were installed on the stern and forward of the bridge structure and aircraft-handling booms installed on the masts.
    During World War I the British navy developed the first true aircraft carrier with an unobstructed flight deck, the HMS Argus, which was built on a converted merchant-ship hull.
    You are welcome world;-)

  • @KyonPhennet
    @KyonPhennet 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The reasons for the two towers are that the two engines are spaced apart in the hull so they each need their own independent exhaust, this was something the royal navy learned from the sinking of HMS Ark Royal. Also, the forward island serves as the ship's control bridge, where its easier to command the running of the ship with a less obstructed view of the bow. The after is better suited to the running of flight ops which is why most aircraft carriers have their islands further back in the ship. If you look at the aft island you can see the huge windows so flight ops can have a full view of the deck. Should be noted that both islands are kitted to do the job of the other in the event one island is lost. But yes, as a brit so proud of our navy. They do amazing work around the world, the true pride of their homeland.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thank you, Jamie! Makes sense, I'm so used to just seeing one tower on US carriers, but having two definitely makes sense. Plus it looks nice!

  • @gigmcsweeney8566
    @gigmcsweeney8566 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Due to continually reduced defence-spending budgets, the UK has always had to find ways of getting more bang for their bucks than other countries. So for example, while the QE class carriers are able to carry far fewer airframes than the US Ford class carriers (40 versus around 90), the UK are able to build three QE class carriers for the same cost of a single Ford class carrier, which essentially means that they could put a third more aircraft into the air as the US for the same cost, notwithstanding the cost of the actual aircraft themselves. There are other important factors, such as power generation. While the Ford class carriers are nuclear powered, which gives them unlimited mileage and theoretically allows them to stay at sea indefinitely, with more than enough power to future-proof them by allowing as many new add-ons as necessary, the QE class carriers are not nuclear powered and have limited operational range of 10,000 nautical miles and an operational lifespan of around 50 years. However, in reality, few nations allow nuclear-powered ships into their ports, which means resupply has to be done at sea. Furthermore, serious repairs would most likely require a return to a US port. Also, despite being able to stay at sea indefinitely, the morale of the crew onboard would decline sharply during an overly-extended mission, which means that the main benefit of being nuclear-powered is limited to the ability to produce enough energy to make it future-proof, though the cost of maintaining a nuclear-powered carrier are far higher than for a gas/deisel turbine system and requires a much larger crew. The QE class carriers are able to enter any friendly port with a deep-enough harbour, which enables them to carry out repairs or resupply without having to return to their home port. Another feature of the QE class carriers is the twin lift system, which allows four jets to be brought up to the flight deck in approximately 1 minute, while the use of the ski-jump instead of a catobar system theoretically allows for a higher sortie rate. Also, retrospecively fitting a catobar system could be achieved relatively cheaply, compared with doing it the other way round. It's still early days, and as with any new system or piece of kit, there are always teething problems to begin with. At the end of the day, the viability and survivability of these carriers depend on their escort ships, and there is no better anti-aircraft destroyer than the Daring class Type 45, or more effective anti-submarine warship or helicopter than the City class frigate and Merlin Mk 2 helicopter. In any case, an allied carrier strike group, combining US, UK, and other allied warships, is a formidable strategic asset, able to project a huge amount of hard power anywhere in the world.

  • @splatoonistproductions5345
    @splatoonistproductions5345 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Few things to note about the QE, firstly, her twin tower design was done to have a separate island meant for aircraft handling/landing while also having the ships exhaust built into it, plus having a separate island for other ops centres to be put in alongside the typical handling of the ship.
    the QE also has a typical complement of 24 f45’s which can be inflated to 36, which is currently more f35’s on this ship then even a us carrier (which from what I’m aware is about 24 combined w 36 plus f18’s and others) but can in war have even more f35’s during the need for bringing as much AirPower to a region as possible (if your keeping about 4-6 helicopters, this could bring the total f35 capacity to around 50+).
    this ship sure is a beauty, and it will have its teething problems like any other new warship in the world, same way the Gerald R ford recently had a catapult issue, so basing a nations naval capability based on one fault which can happen to literally any ship is ridiculous, the only exception to this is that stolen Russian carrier which constantly has “special breakdown operations” 😂😂
    No hate to any nation here, Britain shows that it’s very much a capable nato leader in many ops, I only hope soon w the new military budget they fix some of the technical issues in certain areas as well as addressing the numbers issue that only became an issue thanks to ignorant politicians.

  • @EQINOX187
    @EQINOX187 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    When it comes to the command towers at a basic level they work as exhaust towers as the power units are far apart for suitability reasons, it also allows for differing radar systems to be installed with out interfering with each other which would happen if you tried to install several on one tower. But from a practical perspective the forward tower is the main command where as the rear one is flight control, however both towers are dual purpose so if the forward tower is damaged the rear can do both flight and command and if the read is damaged the front can take over flight control, it also ads defensive survivability because if one tower is hit the remaining tower still has a targeting radar that can be use

  • @pzpete
    @pzpete 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Another thing is that the crew compliment is much less than equivalent US ships. That's because of the automated systems for moving stores and munitions about below decks.

  • @patriciacarline6975
    @patriciacarline6975 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You missed out! A couple of months ago we got a documentary on TV which took us out on trials and a US visit with her - brilliant!

  • @glastonbury4304
    @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    They can carry up to 72 aircraft in case of war....

  • @vinpepp
    @vinpepp ปีที่แล้ว

    The front tower is for driving and commanding the ship, the rear is solely for air operation's, viewing window on the rear tower over looks the flight deck.

  • @skoshman1
    @skoshman1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Her main flaw is the range by being non-nuclear. Her main advantage is she is non-nuclear and thus has lower operational costs. She can also make way a lot faster than a stood-down nuclear carrier, allowing a lot more flexibility of when she is and is not operating. This was a conscious desision as she is not planned to be in near continuous operation like some American carriers.

    • @terencehill1971
      @terencehill1971 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nuclear powered carriers cannot enter harbours, even naval dockyards in most non-nuclear countries.

    • @RajBlake7
      @RajBlake7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nuclear powered carriers still need a fleet to protect them, there is no point in a nuclear carrier that can sail around the world, if all her escorts have to stop and be refueled every few thousand miles or so. Also, fuel for the engines is one thing, what about fuel for her aircraft, food for her sailors, provisions, spare parts, everyday requirements. An Aircraft carrier is the heart of a fleet designed to provide for her, if they cannot keep up with her needs, what's the point ?

    • @terencehill1971
      @terencehill1971 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@RajBlake7 Replenishment at sea has existed since the first day of steam powered ships. The USN perfected it in WW2 with refueling, food and other supplies delivered "on the move". How do you think that the British fleet refueled an rearmed in the South Atlantic when 3000 miles from a friendly port?

    • @Then.72
      @Then.72 ปีที่แล้ว

      When a Nuclear Powered Carrier’s reactor is hit the fleet can’t help, get the crew off the vessel because of the radiation

    • @Aron-ru5zk
      @Aron-ru5zk ปีที่แล้ว

      The crew still need food and utilities, and a nuclear carrier has 2-3x the crew requirements.
      Also the planes, helicopters and weapons need fuel and ammunition.
      So you’re having to restock on supplies anyways so is ship fuel that big a deal? Not to mention the mid life multi year refuelling on nuclear ships.

  • @Stand663
    @Stand663 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I remember seeing HMS Queen Elizabeth at Southampton docks. It was very impressive. I also got a better view when was in Liverpool Mersey docks. There was huge crowds to see her.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      What an amazing experience! Always an impressive sight to see any naval ship, let alone an aircraft carrier.

    • @larrysmith8757
      @larrysmith8757 ปีที่แล้ว

      we live not far from where they were built when you drove over the forth bridges you could see them in roysth dock yard amazing to see

  • @azzajames7661
    @azzajames7661 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Over 15%, near 20% of the F35 is made in Great Britain.
    The fingerprints of British ingenuity can be found on dozens of the F-35's key components. From the Martin-Baker ejection seat to the Cobham refuelling probe to the BAE Systems-built horizontal tails, every F-35 has British parts incorporated from nose to tail.
    The software team at the BAE site in Samlesbury, Lancashire, has worked alongside Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to deliver the latest software updates throughout the history of the programme. We understand that there are more than eight million lines of code required for full operational capability. Recently, they worked on Block 3i, which equips the aircraft with 89% of the software code required.

  • @liamspruce6776
    @liamspruce6776 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    just a small correction to the video, a typical carrying capacity of the QE's is 40 airframes 36 F-35B and 4 ASW helicopters, however that can be swapped around and changed depending on mission requirements, in 2021 she sailed with 26 aircraft 1 squadron of 8 F-35B's from Britain (The Dam Buster Squadron) and 2 squadrons of F-35B's from America (Wake Island Avengers) and 4 ASW helicopters.
    In a wartime posture she would typically carry a couple over 40 aircraft, and in an emergency she can surge to 70 aircraft however this is a last resort as F-35B's could be launched but not recovered on the flight deck due to overcrowding.
    the vid is not wrong, just using the 2021 deployment numbers rather than the actual deployment numbers, the reason she sailed with 26 instead of 40 is because we only had 8 frontline operational F-35B's the others were training aircraft.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Appreciate the correction, Liam!

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You'll find the QE class can take up to 72 aircraft and recover them as well...my uncle is on the QE, however the 72 aircraft would probably never happen unless we were on a war footing and moreover the aircraft , which with govt cuts I doubt will ever happen...

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      She can carry up to 72 aircraft, with a maximum capacity of 36 F-35B fighter jets. It is more likely the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will have up to 24 Lightning jets on board for operations, however. Her flight deck is 280m long and 70m wide - enough space for three football pitches.

  • @peterh2459
    @peterh2459 ปีที่แล้ว

    front island controls ship functions and second rear island controls air, royal navy is also actively moving towards having Mojave reaper drones on the aircraft carriers as additional wingman strike capability as well as the f32b.

  • @librapondo_
    @librapondo_ ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I agree the F35 looks great. I have to say, the Harrier still has something special about the way it looks - shark-like. F35 developed by US, Harrier developed by UK, both used by each other. Still sad Britain couldn't afford to keep Invincible carriers and Harriers going!

  • @robynjackson348
    @robynjackson348 ปีที่แล้ว

    I am so proud of the UK and our military.

  • @robinwilson2238
    @robinwilson2238 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    First time I hear someone call a aircraft carrier a ship and not a boat bravo!!

  • @BikersDoItSittingDown
    @BikersDoItSittingDown ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Top tip for you, if you ever visit the ship, do not make the mistake the narrator did. The aircraft belong to the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.
    Calling them RAF may offend them into making a polite frown!

  • @stevehilton4052
    @stevehilton4052 ปีที่แล้ว

    I'm ex RN and served on the Ark Royal on her last trip...we had around 2750 crew when the aircraft and their squadron personnel were aboard, she was a big ship but she was dwarfed by the USS NIMITZ when we tied up alongside in Puerto Rico ( Ark Royal and NIMITZ picture is online BTW).
    However the Queen Elizabeth is bigger still but because she is so sophisticated and has innovative technological systems she can operate with around 850 crew... the two islands are there to keep air operations and ship operations apart ( if in battle conditions the air command can concentrate on the aircraft tasks, and the ships control can concentrate on any threat from submarine or surface ship or incoming missiles)
    During the battlegroup deployment to the south china sea to emphasize the right of passage in international waters and reject Chinese claims of ownership, the escort ships did exactly what they were there for by locating and seeing off two Chinese submarines trying to shadow the battlegroup, and a third many miles ahead was located by a British nuclear submarine that had been sent ahead to intersept any potential threat....... the many long years of experience and first class training is the reason the RN commands respect

  • @gavinhall6040
    @gavinhall6040 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Even though the F35 is an American aircraft around 15% of every one is British tech and made in the UK.

  • @jillosler9353
    @jillosler9353 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    These sights make me feel safe.

  • @oakguard
    @oakguard ปีที่แล้ว

    Watched them move the sections of these ships down the forth yrs back to be put together

  • @glastonbury4304
    @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    They are amazingly automated as well, so only need around 900 personnel v the Nimitz class which needs around 5000 to operate...

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      That is incredible! For such a massive vessel 900 is extremely optimized. I've always been amazed on how many people it takes to operate ships.

    • @rayjames6096
      @rayjames6096 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      US carriers have more systems, aircraft, different types of weapons and capability.

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@rayjames6096 oh totally agree , different all together , but our 2 carriers are state of the art and plenty of room for upgrades, but nowhere close to US Carriers, but we have nowhere near the money either , but we punch way over our weight....

    • @Horizon301.
      @Horizon301. 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@glastonbury4304 2 for the price of one. It is much better to have two carriers than one so in my view these two QE ships are better than one Nimitz. The US carriers don’t have many advantages over what we have other than costing more, even with the Ford you can see they have tried to reduce workload massively with new systems but we have done that without the unpredictability and cost.

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Horizon301. you're are not wrong you could get 2 for the price of one, however one draw back would be more battle groups which in turn would be more expensive...we could push it to 2 battle groups in the future with the new ships being built, but even America couldn't afford double the battle groups, so they go for larger carriers , plus they have the WASP class as well for F35B's if needed...just a sub costs over a billion quid to accompany a battle group , which there will be a minimum of 2 in Americas battle groups , so although they could build slightly smaller, non nuclear powered carriers far cheaper, there wouldn't be much point for the world's only super power to do so, as they wouldn't double their carriers , and in turn doubling all the support ships etc as not even America could afford 22 battle groups 🤷‍♂️

  • @revbenf6870
    @revbenf6870 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    As I understand it the F35 is not fully American as the UK is a partner in the design and production and some components are made in the UK, and based on the original innovative Harrier jet.

  • @MrAndrew941
    @MrAndrew941 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The system for ammunition is fully automated so that meant crew size could be cut down, the reason there is two towers, is for multiple
    reasons one being engine placement and the ability to split the commands and disciplines on the vessel, air traffic control being the rear tower and command and control being in the front tower and the ability of redundancies if tower was lost the other tower can assume the discipline of the previous tower. Great thanks

  • @t.a.k.palfrey3882
    @t.a.k.palfrey3882 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Everyone appears bemused as to why both HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister carrier HMS Prince of Wales, have two operations towers. With ever greater sophistication in terms of computerised systems, to continue to concentrate all operations functions at a single node became increasingly counterintuitive. By having principal flight ops, and a secondary support ships ops in one node, and vice versa in another, command functions may be separated between two sites of vulnerability, and a secondary command site may be created for each command function as well. No longer do huge capital ships have everything concentrated in one place. At the same time, flight staff and navigation/weaponry staff may each focus on their ever more complicated jobs, appart from one another. Having one control site on an aircraft carrier is akin to trying to drive ten trains and the entire rail network from just one place.

    • @rayjames6096
      @rayjames6096 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Flight decks on carriers are for aircraft not islands and ski jumps. Every ship has auxiliary control centers.

    • @sparkiegaz3613
      @sparkiegaz3613 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      They have two islands one forwards and one aft as the gas turbines are situated directly beneath on four deck and the down take and exhaust exit via the island s,,,beauty of electric propulsion you can place turbines almost anywhere,,obviously they have four diesel powered generators lower down in her belly

    • @ThatSusLad
      @ThatSusLad 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rayjames6096 its due to where the engine rooms are. There are two for survivability. The exhausts go straight up. So either have one long island or two smaller ones. Both are able to carry out each others jobs.
      The majority of aircraft carrier around the world have ramps. The British invented the ramp and catobar systems.
      EMALS wasn't an option due to being unreliable and still is.

    • @rayjames6096
      @rayjames6096 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ThatSusLad Who invented what is irrelevant really. The QE class doesn't have the electrical generating capacity for a fighter rated EMAL system or for any future upgrades. The British never had a EMALS R&D project for that kind of launch system so it wasn't being developed in the UK in first place.

    • @michaelbarton2401
      @michaelbarton2401 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rayjames6096 not entirely correct. The QE class was built with the ability to be retrofitted with emal catobar if and when the new American carriers have worked out all the kinks. If in the future it is needed, it could be upgraded. However for now it is not needed for its mission so no point spending the cash to incorporate it. QE class is supposed to be able to manage 70+ sorties a day which is more than any other outside the USA has even come close to. I think it is the Nimitz which has the current record of sustaining 90 per day. In comparison the Charles De Gaul which is a top class nuclear carrier, can manage about 40.

  • @medler2110
    @medler2110 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I think what really puts HMS Queen Elizabeth above other aircraft carriers, especially US ones, is it has a Pub on board. 😂

  • @AidanMoore-o5u
    @AidanMoore-o5u 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Fantastic, would of liked to have seen some kind of surface to air missile defense system on the carrier itself..

  • @krpkrp3033
    @krpkrp3033 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There's also a pub onboard.

  • @declantrebicki4789
    @declantrebicki4789 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There is video somewhere that explains why two towers but can't remember but I think if I remember rightly it is that the ship can be run from either tower incase of damage in a attack or a malfunction in one

  • @danielferguson3784
    @danielferguson3784 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

    The 2 towers on the Elizabeth Class carriers are, one for management of the ship, the other is for aircraft control operations. Rolls Royce have been making the best marine & aircraft jet engines in the world since the 2nd world war. This now includes nuclear powered engines for Britain newest submarines.

  • @martinmcdermott2872
    @martinmcdermott2872 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The two towers are designed to maintain operations if one tower is hit with missile or something goes badly wrong.... All key operations can be quickly moved to the second tower to continue and keep the ship moving....

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Makes sense! Would be an easy target now that I'm thinking about it to take out a carrier with one tower, especially with the accuracy or modern day weapons it could be fairly easy. Makes me wonder what the US carriers plan if that does happen?

  • @petervenkman69
    @petervenkman69 ปีที่แล้ว

    The Invincible class was not technically an Aircraft Carriers as there was effectively a moratorium on aircraft carriers. They were called Through-deck Cruisers, and were originally designed for helicopters and not jets. This of course changed with the development of VTOL aircraft. (No official document described it as an aircraft carrier until 1980)

  • @Mexiepino
    @Mexiepino ปีที่แล้ว

    There are two islands to funnel exhaust for each Rolls Royce engine to alleviate the piping for exhaust to a minimum. Hence more room for more kit.

  • @keithgrant7950
    @keithgrant7950 ปีที่แล้ว

    The carrier has two Islands (Superstructures) as each Island has a different function. One island is for Navigation and Ship's Operation and the second is for the Flight Control and Ariel Operations. Much as you like the new VSTOL I still thing the old Harrier Jump Jet could out perform and out maneuver the F35B in all but speed. USA Nimitz class carriers have four (4) aircraft lifts.

  • @saxonstacker7269
    @saxonstacker7269 ปีที่แล้ว

    One tower for the ship, the other for aircraft. Two towers allows for two separate engines independent from each other and their cooling towers can be further apart giving more room. If one engine goes down. She can still move with the other.

  • @robertjohnson-taylor100
    @robertjohnson-taylor100 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    They should have built a 3rd - The Princess Royal

    • @maca45
      @maca45 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Robert I totally agree with you. Firstly though I think we would always have a problem with manning all of them. Secondly with my 23yrs of defense experience and defence expenditure failings, we would end up using one of them for spare parts.

  • @jamienorman2622
    @jamienorman2622 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I'm in that picture of the strike group at the beginning of the video. I was on the stores ship to the right of the QE as you're looking at it.

    • @Aron-ru5zk
      @Aron-ru5zk ปีที่แล้ว

      RFA fort Victoria?

  • @SlapnastyMcTavish
    @SlapnastyMcTavish ปีที่แล้ว

    The QE type carriers have two towers, one from which the ship is sailed and a separate air control tower, however the ship can be sailed from either in the event that one tower is taken out by enemy action.

  • @richierich4810
    @richierich4810 ปีที่แล้ว

    Im proud that your proud :)

  • @gavin1506
    @gavin1506 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You have to see the video of her coming into her home Port of Portsmouth. It makes the city look like a model village!

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Ha! I'll definitely check it out! It's incredible to see these marvels sailing by towns and cities. Incredible to see.

    • @gavin1506
      @gavin1506 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@californianreacts I'll look out a link.

    • @gavin1506
      @gavin1506 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@californianreacts this is the full entry first time th-cam.com/video/U-iCbfkJmSI/w-d-xo.html

  • @trevtaylor5558
    @trevtaylor5558 ปีที่แล้ว

    To answer the question of the two islands. The reason for them is one is the ATC for the aircraft and the other one is ship navigation. The Royal Navy believe that it's better to keep things simple and have redunancy also so one can move to the other.....so I'm told.

  • @geraldtir
    @geraldtir 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Hiya looking in from England. in answer to your question regarding the two islands on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. as far as I am aware the rear island controls the flight decks. and the Foreword Island controls the general running of the aircraft carrier. By the way the budget for defence in England UK is about to go up to 3%. there is absolutely no question the armed forces over here are definitely being built up.

  • @markwoods1504
    @markwoods1504 ปีที่แล้ว

    Greetings From The British Isles, these excellent Aircraft Carriers were built around the F35 originally for Catabar which is already built in but not finished, the UK changed their mind halfway through and went for the F35B variant. I think the CATOBAR system will be fitted on its first refit.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  ปีที่แล้ว

      Greetings, Mark! Didn't know this, although I do remember mentions about this system surrounding these two new beautiful aircraft carriers.

  • @paulday6236
    @paulday6236 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    We're a little country with a big heart

  • @SpartasEdge
    @SpartasEdge ปีที่แล้ว

    5:14
    The rear tower on these carriers, is for flight control, organising and controlling the carriers flight operations, while the front tower controls the ship operations and navigation in general, it's a great design in my opinion, dedicated and custom control towers.
    Also, you're right about the F-35, such a great aircraft, extremely capable. I would argue both the American Nimitz carriers and Queen Elizabeth class, are the best in the world.

  • @bizexpertonline7116
    @bizexpertonline7116 ปีที่แล้ว

    Forward con is for ship operations, rear con needed for diesel exhaust and flight ops was built round that need offering military redundancy. No point having nuclear power when the strik group is conventional.

  • @CodeLeeCarter
    @CodeLeeCarter ปีที่แล้ว

    The twin island design splits flying operations from the command island, meant to have lots of benefits for the flightdeck, there's also redundancy, if one tower is destroyed, command can be redirected to the second island

  • @californianreacts
    @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    What a coincidence! HMS Queen Elizabeth anchored off New York a few days ago. Also that the United Kingdom are one of the few partners in the F35 program (with the narrator saying "the American F35). I got your back! ✈
    The F-35 is developed, produced, and supported by an international team of government allies and aerospace industry leaders. The F-35 Program is managed by the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy are all procuring and operating F-35s. There are eight international program partners - the U.S., United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada. Six Foreign Military Sales customers are also procuring and operating the F-35 ­- Israel, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Belgium and Singapore.

    • @carolineb3527
      @carolineb3527 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I hate it when people make pedantic comments just for the sake of it... but here's mine. 😉 There's no need to put the word "the" in front of the term "HMS" because it doesn't make sense... HMS stands for His Majesty's Ship and you wouldn't say "The His Majesty". At least, I hope you wouldn't!

    • @theSFCchannel
      @theSFCchannel 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It's not THE American F35. The Brits invented the VTOL LONG before the usa (40 years before) and so much that the UK PAID for a good potion of its R&D. No less than 20% of what makes the F35 is British technology and innovation. Without the British the Americans would not have made the F35.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@carolineb3527 I appreciate it, Caroline! And completely blanked on this which I learned from a previous video and said "the HMS", whoops! Fixed in the title and this comment. Us Californians are known for putting "the" in front of many things when the rest of the country and world doesn't 😅

    • @thetruthhurts7675
      @thetruthhurts7675 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      There is only one level one coutry that is a partner in the F35. That country which as jointly developed this aircarft is Great britian.

  • @johnson787878
    @johnson787878 ปีที่แล้ว

    The video didn't answer your question about the two towers.
    So I've seen tv documentary that they're both used independently, one for a control tower, and the other is for ships navigation. But in the event of a failure of one tower. Strike or otherwise a single tower do the job of both.

  • @stevensalmon1318
    @stevensalmon1318 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    5:18 one tower is for steering the ship and navigation the other is like an air traffic comand and control tower for the aircraft. In a disaster situation either could actually do both if one is taken out by enemy fire etc

  • @squirepraggerstope3591
    @squirepraggerstope3591 2 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    OK, the QEs were initially intended to be 65,000 tonnes but naval architects said they actually emerged at 70,600 tonnes, The 36 x F35-B figure was originally given as the fast jet component of a STANDARD, peacetime 'strike'-role airwing, which would be "surged" in war with a max balanced airwing then topping out at c60 aircaft 'all types. Which implies up to c48 x F35-B in a max 'strike'-role airwing.
    You see, the various reduced numbers given for F35 are merely 'political' and do not reflect the real number a QE carrier could comfortably operate IF our loathsome establishment mediocrities hadn't done their usual trick of making huge cuts in the number to be purchased... (from 138 planes to currently just a 'certain' 48, and likely a final total of max 72)
    In short, the rats that infest Westminster and Whitehall prefer not to have it made too obvious that for the foreseeable future, our carriers will typically put to sea with fewer than half the number of planes on board than they were designed to operate 😁

    • @TheLiamis
      @TheLiamis ปีที่แล้ว

      I'm sure the rest of that budget is in the caymen Islands.

    • @squirepraggerstope3591
      @squirepraggerstope3591 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TheLiamis Good point, a big slice very likely is, wih more sloshing aound eveywhere from Bermuda to Luxembourg too. While a yet bigger batch is still thieved from our forces and people via the continuing over-bloat of our Aid Budget to fund regimes in sundry 3rd World shitholes that we shouldn't touch with a bargepole.

    • @thelastdruidofscotland
      @thelastdruidofscotland ปีที่แล้ว

      This is where the USMC comes in, the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Air Force all train together directly with the USMC, and are plugged DIRECTLY into the same systems, if the carriers need be, they can service ANY F35B, and train hard to turn around air wings in record times, these two carriers are INTEGRAL to NATO forces, and that should be taken very seriously, especial;ly given they can launch on par with the american supercarriers.

    • @Then.72
      @Then.72 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well say it’s late deliveries

  • @barrymiller3385
    @barrymiller3385 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The US carriers (Ford and Nimitz classes) are significantly bigger at 100,000 tons, carry more aircraft and thus deliver a greater punch than the QE class. The US Navy, French Navy and the Royal Navy are the only ones capable of putting together a full carrier strike group. (The French Navy only has one large carrier so this is only available part of the time.) The Chinese are racing to develop this ability. They are a long way from having blue water (worldwide) capability but may soon be able to operate their carriers in local waters.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  ปีที่แล้ว

      Great information, Barry! Thank you! I was curious on which countries actually have a legitimate carrier group and you summed it up well. I remember being in the French port in Toulon and seeing their navy which was impressive. Could definitely see their strike group all around the harbor.

  • @adambrandist2233
    @adambrandist2233 ปีที่แล้ว

    The main reason for 2 islands was the turbine exhaust it was either one long one or 2 smaller ones each can do the job if the other if any issues but usually one is for flight control the other is for ship operations

  • @michaelwain3198
    @michaelwain3198 ปีที่แล้ว

    The big USN carriers follow on from the fleet carriers of WW2 in that they are designed to operate large air groups of more conventional aircraft, to project power wherever they are deployed and they are the best for that role. The Royal Navy has more recent experience of smaller carriers, using V/Stol aircraft, so it made sense to buy the F-35B and operate large V/Stol carriers. There is also the secondary role of a landing support carriers, the same role the USS America class perform. In fact. these ships are ideal for working with the USN as they can operate many of the same aircraft - in fact on HMS Queen Elizabeth's first deployment, she was carrying a USMC F-35 squadron, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the US and British naval forces to work together. One of the battlegroup escorts was the destroyer USS The Sullivans. There's every reason that the USN and RN should work together, along with NATO allies, for our mutual defence and security

  • @harryhatter2962
    @harryhatter2962 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thats a pretty silly thing to say that the British pun ch above their weight...it wasnt THAT LONG ago that they WERE THE weight!

    • @AllAboutYouTubers13
      @AllAboutYouTubers13 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yeah you are right and if we never fought Hitler alone for the first year there never would’ve been a land base to make the new front which led to us beating Germany

  • @AndyH2023.
    @AndyH2023. 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    A great video! Normally the British get slatted rotten by these videos but not this channel 👍🏻👍🏻

  • @eyesofisabelofficial
    @eyesofisabelofficial 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Just use HMS, never "The HMS" as that would be like saying "The His Majesty's Ship".
    Use HMS Queen Elizabeth first, then Queen Elizabeth or The Queen Elizabeth thereafter.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Thanks for the correction, Andy! I accidentally did this in a prior video saying "the HMS" and completely blanked as I wrote the title and spoke in the video. Fixed the title!

  • @NorthHoustonCityLimits
    @NorthHoustonCityLimits 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Maybe you could do one on the Australian Navy! Great video thanks!

    • @Stand663
      @Stand663 ปีที่แล้ว

      Royal Australian Navy. HMAS.

  • @stonecoldsteve316uk
    @stonecoldsteve316uk ปีที่แล้ว

    first aircraft carrier that can land a plane fully loaded with bombs,instead of dumping them in the sea

  • @axspike
    @axspike 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The two towers (great film!).. One is for flight control and aerial operations and the other is for navigation and ship operations.

    • @californianreacts
      @californianreacts  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Fantastic film indeed! I used to have a posted up on my wall as a kid of the two towers. As for the aircraft carrier, makes sense! Looks great.

    • @axspike
      @axspike 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@californianreacts yes! A reply! 😂 😂 And actually watching your jubilee flyby vid now!!

  • @stokecityscfc2547
    @stokecityscfc2547 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very proud of the Royal navy will never be what it once was but we still rule the seas

  • @proudyorkshireman7708
    @proudyorkshireman7708 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    As much as I love the Royal Navy it is seriously lacking in armament the carrier was supposed to be fitted with 30mm defensive guns but it still doesn’t have them. Our f35b’s are only cleared for launching one type of anti air missile and dropping laser guided paveway bombs.
    Most of our ships and all of our aircraft have lost anti ship capability ( apart from the wildcat with the sea venom which is still on trails).
    I love the carriers and the new frigates being built but what is the point of them if they have very limited offensive capability. I hope with the restoration of 3% gdp defence spending that we might see some offensive capability but I’ll believe it when I see it from the government and MOD

    • @briangibson6527
      @briangibson6527 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sorry to burst your bubble mate ,but we only get 2.5% of GDP thanks to ,"Rashid Sanook !!!

  • @PatriotUK78
    @PatriotUK78 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    That things a beast

  • @johndavid5618
    @johndavid5618 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    A BEAUTY. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🇬🇧💪💪💪

  • @AgentLynch616
    @AgentLynch616 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The reason HMS queen Elizabeth and HMS prince of Wales has 2 separate islands is because of the size of its exhausts and positioning of its huge engines. This in turn gave separate ship control and flight control stations. Redundancy in case one was damaged and more flight deck space.

    • @thetruthhurts7675
      @thetruthhurts7675 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nope it is NOT. The last carriers we had the deck was so small that the island, and all of it's extra suff ran along the length of the flight deck, the invincible class. This actually reduced cross deck wind issues, and meant that the harrier could take off in weather other aircraft could not. For example the Phatom itself could not have operated on the Ark Royal (Audacious class) in the falklands because the cross deck wind factors put them out of their ability to launch them. The second island is for venting the exhaust, as you say, but it's main aim is to reduce the strange cross deck winds at sea. Plus there is a level of extra space incase either island is taken out, so there is a reasonable amount of what is known as redundant ability in having two islands. this was THE main reason for a second island!! I know the second island has a vent system in it, but it isn't it main raison d'etre.

    • @AgentLynch616
      @AgentLynch616 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thetruthhurts7675 I read Nope it is NOT. Ignored the rest and typed this reply

    • @ThatSusLad
      @ThatSusLad 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thetruthhurts7675 the reason is due to two separate engine rooms for survivability. Due to the exhaust stacks going straight up it was either one long island or two separate ones.

    • @thetruthhurts7675
      @thetruthhurts7675 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@ThatSusLad Did you not read what I put? i accept the design but whern they were doing it they opted for the second funnel stack and Island to reduce wind factors, this actually means that the F35's on the QE can be launched whebn they cannot from say a wasp calss acrrier, or even the Nimitz, or the Ford classes.
      Maybe you may Not believe just me I was an aircraft engineer in the Royal navy, this next is froma site called Quora, and this guy answers your point correctly, or my way as well, and guess what he is still in the Royal Navy :
      "Profile photo for Stephen West
      Stephen West
      Former Leading Marine Engineering Mechanic at Royal Navy (1995-2008)Author has 225 answers and 380.3K answer views2y
      Why does HMS Queen Elizabeth have two islands?
      A quick read of this will answer the question, but in short there are 3 main reasons:-
      1. To allow segregation of the 2 funnels since the power plants are quite a distance apart within the Hull, which meant that there was a choice between 1 long Island or 2 smaller separate islands.
      2. Separate islands means the 2 command functions can be positioned in optimal locations, ships operations in the fwd island and FLYCO in the aft. They also have to ability to carry out each others functions in an emergency.
      3. Reduced air turbulence over the deck compared to if it had been 1 long island.
      Also aperance is subjective, I personally like the profile of the QE class, I would have preferred it to be an angled flight deck."
      The two islands also give the Qe the biggest operational flight deck of any carrier out there, by this design they actually increased the deck area. The next is from the UKDJ (United Kingdom Defence Journal) : ukdefencejournal.org.uk/why-does-hms-queen-elizabeth-have-two-islands/
      Please read this bit in particular : "Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings." That is the second paragraph.
      My point is that whatever the multiple reasons the second Island is NOT just for the exhaust system, there was some pretty original design engineering in the building of the most automated, most modern, and best aircraft carriers inthe world. Not just " oh we need an extra space for exhausting the fumes from the gas tubines, I know we will just add a second island." As this thread started by Lynch 616 suggests here.

    • @thetruthhurts7675
      @thetruthhurts7675 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AgentLynch616 Then you are jsut ignorant the idea is to have less turbulance on the flight deck, go do some actual reading before saying " I read Nope it is NOT. Ignored the rest and typed this reply
      ." I read Nope it is NOT. Ignored the rest and typed this reply"
      Which does rather make you look childish to say the very least!

  • @marvinc9994
    @marvinc9994 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    'Drones' are something EVERYONE has at least heard of by now !

  • @ashredfern8507
    @ashredfern8507 ปีที่แล้ว

    Britsin needs more ships tbh alot more.. it was talked about ramping up our inhouse production to triple our fleet size in recent years. Now we have increased the militarily spenidture again due to russia i suspect that will evolve into tanks etc too. I am not proud of having a carrier but i am proud they named it after Elizabeth, she was a global figure, so was appropriate i think.

  • @nickelroof6727
    @nickelroof6727 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The two towers are also carbon copies of eachother. This builds in redundency in case one tower gets damaged during war

  • @shaung8182
    @shaung8182 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you brother! We are trying to help out brothers across the pond! The way the world is today ! IT's nice to lighten the burden our AMERICAN HERO'S carry!

  • @kwlkid85
    @kwlkid85 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    There's a comparison video by Binkov's battlegrounds between the Queen Elizabeth Class and China's carrier.

  • @carlospinckney9278
    @carlospinckney9278 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    FYI Us carriers have 4 to 6 elevators

  • @glastonbury4304
    @glastonbury4304 ปีที่แล้ว

    I miss the INVISIBLE CLASS, they were so stealthy!! 😂

  • @harryturner9304
    @harryturner9304 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It's also really good value compared to the US behemoths. Arguably a better ship with this point put into account.

  • @HowlinWilf13
    @HowlinWilf13 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Yes, I am proud to be British, for many reasons, but we've been doing it all for a long time. I don't think pride is a very big part of our national character. Videos like this, as much as they might give me a thrill (and big Lizzy certainly gave me that 😁), provide me with more of a sense of satisfaction that we are still capable of such things, and that the world as we know it continues to turn. Thanks for your enjoyable video!

  • @mikestarkey7989
    @mikestarkey7989 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    1 is for fighting the other is for sailing and navigation.