UK's New 3rd Aircraft carrier: Does the Royal Navy need more Supercarrier?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Will the UK build a new 3rd aircraft carrier to augment the Royal Navy's might?
The Royal Navy currently operates 69 ships in active service as of 2023. There are 10 nuclear-powered submarines (4 ballistic missile submarines and 6 fleet submarines) and 21 large surface combatants (2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers, 11 frigates, and 2 amphibious transport docks). There are also 26 patrol ships, 2 survey ships, an icebreaker, and the historic battleship Victory in the Navy's arsenal.
It is important to note that the United Kingdom has a long history of utilizing aircraft carriers as essential components of its naval forces. The development and deployment of these carriers have played a crucial role in enhancing the UK's maritime capabilities and projecting its power globally.
PPS; The HMS Hermes that fought in the Falklands War of 1982 was NOT the same ship as the HMS Hermes commissioned in 1924.
Yes - no credibility left after they made that ridiculous claim. Totally different eras and planes.
HMS Argus should get a mention...
Was just about to say the same!! Couldnt believe they could be so wrong , A 1924 ship in a 1982 conflict !?😂😂😂😂
If they can’t get something as straight forward as that, a mistake that is so obvious, how can we take their other assertions that would be new knowledge to us seriously?
Yes the Hermes of 1923 was sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1942. The Hermes that served in the Falklands was a Centaur Class Aircraft Carrier launched in 1953, it was to be decommissioned prior to the Falklands but was kept on until after the Falklands due to the war. The first aircraft carrier was the Furious, which along with its two sisters were converted from battle cruisers to aircraft carriers. The Hermes was the first purpose built aircraft carrier in the world. Argus was similarly a conversion.
Oh god, another badly researched video! HMS Argus was the first aircraft carrier in any fleet, of any navy. Not just, have the U.K. been ‘using carriers’ for a long time, they actually invented them, along with steam catapults, and pretty much everything that was associated with aircraft carriers, certainly during the early years and even up to after WW2.
HMS Hermes may have been the first ‘purpose’ built, from scratch carrier, but it was a fair few years beforehand, that aircraft we re being launched from a ship in the manner we are accustomed to today. History is so fascinating, especially the factual bits of it..
03:06 Absolutely zero credibility for this video. What a waste. Turning it off now.
JAPAN ACTUALLY LAUNCHED THE FIRST PURP0SE BUILT CARRIER A SH0RT TIME, WEEKS, BEF0RE BUT WITH0UT A BRIDGE. H0WEVER THE FIRST 3 JAPANESE CARRIERS THAT HAD A BRIDGE HAD IT 0N THE P0RT SIDE AND ALL LATER CARRIERS C0PIED THE R0YAL NAVY WITH A STARB0ARD BRIDGE. ANGLE FLIGHT DECK, STEAM CATAPULT, HK & WIRE LANDING, EMERGENCY NET, MIRR0R LANDING SYSTEM, STARB0ARD BRIDGE ETC ALL BRITISH. NUCLEAR P0WERED CARRIER WAS USA. VIDE0 IS H0RREND0US.
Zero, I won’t subscribe… put on Do not Subscribe
The original HMS Hermes was the first aircraft carrier designed and built as such, in the world rather than a conversion from a different type.
The question is why a mid sized European nation needs carriers at all. The old Admirals reasoning was " keeping maritime trade moving" of coarse now the UK is not such a big trade player that old saw will not work. Perhaps it's the empire dreamers wanting the 'old days'. Funny how Germany/Japan much bigger trade machines don't seem to patrol the Red Sea, maybe the UK could take a hint. Veteran of Hermes 1982.
The irony is that the Royal Navy would be a naval superpower if they didn't have any Aircraft Carriers, Amphibious transport docks, Destroyers and Frigates
If the funds put into those ships intead went into A2-AD Naval Assets, the UK would have one of the most powerful Naval forces in the world, capable of defending any Navy.
The policy of Naval disarmament and RN reduction has in fact been accompanied by a retreat on trade, industry, the economy, the culture, and quality of life in the UK..... Wonder if there is a connection....
They not only need more carriers but they also need more support ships, subs, fighter and bomber aircraft and of course many more service men and women.
We should ask our French Allies for more help eh? 😂
They especially need more women.... and blacks
Why?
@@michealrcnicholson9342 search me! Diversity replacement.
@@DaveSCameron The French looks to be in better shape :)
Pretty sure the Brits heard about France’s PANG project and said “BLOODY HELL! OUR NAVY IS NOT ABOUT TO BE OUTDONE BY FRANCE OF ALL COUNTRIES!”
We currently have 1 carrier more than the French have !
First complete the support vessels for the two current carriers, then start a third
There is no money .....
@@grahamthebaronhesketh.if there is not enough money to build Logistic & Repair ships for the first two carriers then they should NOT build a third.
@@williampaz2092 The third might be to keep the other 2 ready. 1 on service , 1 on stand by and one in refit/repairs.
There should be any. otherwise the Third carrier needs to be 'Battlecarrier'. with offensive weapon battery like a big VLS that fitted onto Destroyers and Frigates and few medium calibre naval guns.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh....and no crew.
Royal Navy's main problem is recruiting and retaining people. No point building more ships of any kind if they have to rotate them in harbour for lack of crew.
Don;t mention press gangs!
They need a third carrier, the Air Force needs more euro fighters, the army needs more tanks and all branches of service need a minimum of 50,000 personnel each.
Nope
the RAF, needs a carrier capable air superiority fighter, and needs to learn to operate from carriers when needed,
Falklands , Libya, Syria all proved that
@@farmerned6 I agree that is a necessary but you also need to increase the manpower in all branches of the service, the army needs to stay at 250,000 because it’s the army that wins the nations wars. I’m a retired army sergeant.
Who's the enemy I would say the real enemy is the people running our country. We have nuclear Submarines we can't afford now people want to spend more money on defense. We can't even protect our shores the Royal Navy is now nothing but a ferry service and another branch off the USN.
@@farmerned6 F-35 C can perform air superiority role, but it will need arrest wires or EMALS to land.
More then that Homes: if the UK wants to survive the upcoming global war...
I think you'll find HMS Argus was the first aircraft carrier although it wasn't the first purpose built aircraft carrier from the ground up.
HMS Hermes was 1st purpose built carrier in world ( not Falklands war version) she was only commissioned 1959 .
Your punctuation leaves something to be desired.
Interesting subject you raise, but we should define what really constitutes “firsts” regarding aircraft carriers. The first recorded landing of an aircraft on a (moving) ship was achieved in August 1917 by Edwin Dunning on HMS Furious. It was over a year later that HMS Argus enjoyed this experience. Hermes was indeed the first purpose built AC, commissioned February 19th 1924, but only after lessons were learned from the aforementioned ships. HMS Eagle followed Hermes a week later.
@@dreadnought5518iirc that was before her full conversion so it was a flight deck fore and aft with a sort of track thing to get round the superstructer. She'd possibly still have at least one of her 18" mounts. Furious was an odd ball. She was a test bed hull for a lot of things going on. Arguably more of what was learned from her went into Ark Royal and the Illustrious class than Hermes and Argus too.
Hermes was the first Purpose-built Aircraft carrier to be laid down(to start being built). But she was not the Purpose-built aircraft carrier. That was the IJN Hōshō(Japan) HMS Hermies spent years on hold while testing was done on existing converted CVs Like Argus and Furious on design features like the Ships Island to name just one. Hermies was not commissioned till 1924 Hōshō was commissioned in 1922. incidentally My Grandfather served as a Air mechanic and Swordfish Gunner on both HMS Hermies and HMS Furious
No, we do not need another carrier. We NEED to ensure finally that the two we already have are optimally configured, fully armed, and...
1) WILL be equipped routinely with the large, well-balanced airwings comprising ALL relevant types of fixed and rotary winged aircraft that they should already be operating
2) WILL be accompanied routinely by FULL UK battlegroups comprised of ALL RELEVANT TYPES OF fully armed, top-end combat-capable escort vessels (AA/MW; ASW, ASuW optimised AND real, top end tier-1 GPFs too!!)
Actually, you do simply to provide reasonable maintenance and deployment schedules. Three is the minimum number to generally assure you have ONE available: 1 on active deployment. 1 in port giving crew rest and undergoing basic upkeep. And 1 ship in major overhaul. Anything less places excessive wear on the ships and their crews and the ships are less serviceable.
OK< fine, but where is the money coming from?
@@edmundbell-king9756 I'm not sure it is. For eg, how do you rate the chance of stopping our repugnant haute bourgeois metro-establishment garbage from worthless virtue signalling on still over-bloated overseas aid payments to umpteen 3rd world cesspits that we shouldn't waste a penny on?
Reasonable question and I don't know your economy and politics to say but I DO understand that it's either find the money for a 3rd ship now or find the money to REPLACE BOTH QE and PoW much earlier than otherwise necessary down the line.
@@marcharkness6101 In truth, I'm virtually certain that two ships is all we're getting. Thus the aim must be to maximise availability in full knowledge that the situation is not ideal and lack of a third hull does mean that in case of even modest unplanned outages, another carrier may not always be immediately available.
Alas, it's a problem that all countries except the US, have faced routinely.
Wrong Hermes!!!!! Go away and do PROPER Research.
They don’t have enough aircraft for the two carriers they already have.
Aren’t we a green eyed jealous wee Australian monster, and don’t worry you’ll get your submarine’s, but your going to pay us tens of billions, and that’s £’s not Australian Monopoly money.😅😂🤣🇬🇧🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺
The point is that if you only have 2 and one is in refit you then only have one. If you then have an accident on that ONE what aircraft are in the air......
My feeling is a third SMALLER carrier mainly for helicopter ops. Would be useful, particularly when one of the QE carriers is in refit.
Remember the UK only ever have 50 or so sea harriers. But we still had 4 carriers: invincible , illustrious, arc Royal and ocean.
Do remember they don't just carry fast jets, they also carry helicopters for airborne early warning , anti submarine warfare, transport , search and rescue maybe even Apache for ground attack
I believe the main problem we have is lack of escort ships we need more frigates and maybe some destroys before thinking of getting another carrier, and even so I doubt we could even afford to operate three carriers.
@@bluestorm3628 well be operated 4 carriers (all be it smaller ones ) when we had 50 or so sea harriers. But yes I think that 2 more type 45s would help, and maybe 2 more astute subs.
But it's a bit like the new wedge tail AWACs we canceled the last 2 thus only having 3, and when one of those is out of service you don't have enough. And by canceling 40% of the fleet did we save 40% of the cost? No less than 20%. When you buy more the unit cost goes down.
Building the infrastructure for a carrier fleet. If they smart they'd have put catapults on them that way when required they could operate the F35C or the F18 Superhornet.
The UK is living beyond its means. Struggling to cope even with the 2 already commissioned.
After stating that a ship built in 1924 was used in 1982 , that was it I’m off!!
Not really that surprising is it tho if it works it works lol just technology that but most this stuff to bed
The Royal Navy is the Royal Navy. As an island nation, it is both the sword and the shield of the UK. Regardless of its size, it will always be a power player.
The Royal Navy is very small and wouldn’t take long to destroy. You can apply this to the army and RAF as well.
@@Dingdangdoo compared to who, our ally America? The EU? Our only enemies right now would be Russia or China and neither of them would stand a chance.
@@vincentrees4970That’s true most of their technology is at least 20 years older and the war in Russia apparently has gotten so bad Russia resorted to some Cold War aircraft.
@@vincentrees4970Nobody would win if we fought China, but numbers and firepower wise China has a huge advantage over us.
Rule of thumb says you need three to keep one on station--one on station, one working up, one in dockyard hands.. With three, you can also surge two for a limited time, but you will pay the price for deferred maintenance downstream.
Needs to go back up to 14 destroyers not build another bloody aircraft carrier.
With the way the economy is going, where are they going to get the money for it?
It doesn't need a 3rd carrier, in fact 2 carriers is already pushing things pretty far.
2 carriers ensures that at least 1 will always be available at any given time and 2 carriers in a fleet will give the UK plenty of punch against most of the worlds militaries, that's probably 100+ strike fighters able to go anywhere on the planet.
The UK itself is it's own aircraft carrier for projecting force around Europe.
3 carriers would be sexy though
Being a 100% vulnerable Island nation it Most certainly needs another Carrier or 3. Honestly they should have 4 minimum. Japan is another vulnerable island and should have a 4-5 strong Super Carrier force.
Yep UK and Japan needs 2-3 super carriers and about 4-5 wasp or america style amphibious assault ships!!
Why don't they buy an American Nimitz class carrier from America and do it up@@Legion-xq8eo
Vulnerable Island ? Not any more ! The Islamic Navy strengthens its position daily ! The Islands were lost years ago !
Britanistan LOL. Yes won't be long now. France will go first but there will be a lot of blood involved
Stan is a persian Word meaning “land” so when you say Britainstan you are bascially saying “land of the brits”
What The UK need is a strong Air Force and/or air defense, it’s Air Force rank about 8th or 9th in the world,…Carriers are for Power projection, protect your homeland first.
And it's a GUARANTEE the defense force will NOT get the service people it needs.
No, we need more sailors and more escorts. You cant have 3 super carriers when there is nobody to man them, fix recruitment and retention first.
The recruitment it part of the problem! University graduates and completely literate people, instead of moulding and training people to be who they really need. Some of the best navigators technicians metal workers, simply can’t spell or work out mathematical formulas! However the recruiters want you to be able to do these…
@michaelcoles6140 recruitment numbers isn't the problem it's Capita the private recruitment agency that does the recruitment is the problem ever since they got the contract after the government stopped the military from doing their own recruitment they have extended the process by months and that puts people off. Another thing is due cuts the MOD is getting rid of more military personnel and set the recruiting on a set number due too budget. If the military was allowed to continue it's own recruitment process which speeds up time and our government puts at least 4% GDP into defence we will have a good sizable and professional volunteer military personally I think we should boost it up to at least 5.5 - 6% GDP to bring back the home service style of reservists we had back in the Cold War they probably trained once a month lightly armed and older equipment but it will be handy to have to boost defence and be useful for national emergencies at home to free up regular and actual reservists. All in all numbers isn't an issue it's boils down to government creating flaws. I can speak on experience I joined the army reserves in 2020 it taken nearly 3-4 months just to jus get into my physical and get sworn in before phase 1 training I had to leave due to work but since I got a new job with less hours I'd love to rejoin but after going through the mess of a recruitment process before I'm put off from going back
Even though everyone puts the boot into the Royal Navy its still the 2nd most powerful navy in the world (china just has a load of small support ships that never leave their own waters)- not bad for a small country.
The US's 7th fleet is bigger than the whole of the RN. Its definitely not in the No.2 spot . We're behind France and many other countries.
Not sure that is right. I think UK rank 9. Probably less if you exclude the Nuke Deterrent.
@peteroliver536 how do you come to that conclusion?
2nd best carriers in the world, Nuclear hunter killer subs - only France and the US have anything on par + the Nuclear deterrent fleet, best Air defence destroyers in the world in the type 45...New frigates coming on line etc etc
On the air defence the Arleigh Burke is better although China new 052D is on par. both ships also have excellent anti ship abilities. Until recently the only anti ship ability the Type 45 had was its gun. India Kolkata class of which India has 3 is also better as part of its 11 strong fleet. Japan has 36 modern destroyers many of which are modern with some the best. Having new ships coming down the line does not make something best. The type 45 was meant to be a fleet of 12 and soon became 6. Who knows how many type 26 will end up being bult. whilst the carriers maybe good for helicopters but are useless for air operations as the F35B is short range. Uk has very few,. The carrier would need to operate within range of powerful anti ship weapons fired from land unlike those of India, France and the US who can operate far from land. Now if we were just talking about subs, then fair play the Astute is the best and a shame we will only have 7 and not the needed 12 to 18. @@mrfrisky6501
6 destroyers, 8 frigates, and 5 hunter killer submarines. That’s all we have. How do you make that the second most powerful. 14 surface ships to protect the U.K. to defend the nuclear deterrent. To provide two carrier strike groups and to police the med, the Indian Ocean, the Black Sea, the South China Sea and chase the Russians around the North Atlantic and sabre rattle in the south Atlantic.
Japan alone as an example has a naval fleet of 42 destroyers. The U.K. has 6 and only 3 of those are available. No we are not the second most powerful anything. We are a laughing stock. We couldn’t defend the Thames, let alone the channel, much less the worlds oceans. This is a sad fact. And base reality my friend
It was a different HMS Hermes in the falklands war. The one you pictured was sunk in ww2.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound clip
WWII Hermes sunk by Japanese naval aircraft in Indian Ocean close to Celyon.
Before you hypothesise the need for a third carrier you need to ask the question are there enough assets to man/arm a carrier. Unless there is a huge drive in Drones like the "Loyal Wingman" and a larger V22 type heavy lift VTOL this is al pie in the sky thinking.
If you don't have a minimum of 3 you could effectively have none when you need them, as they need to be rotated through deployment, overhaul and training.
Actually 4. Think the nuclear deterrent submarines.
@@brianwillson9567 In was going to post that. You beat me to it. 👍👍
yeah they are expensive and we don't work alone typically anyway
@@DarkShroom Are you in the Navy? Good for you.
@@Demun1649no he isn't.
Gunboats for english channel would be more use.😊
The Hermes shown was not the Hermes that was in the Falklands war, and the Ark Royal was an Invincible class carrier, not a modified ship.
There has been at least two HMS Ark Royals. Reusing ships names is a common practice, going back to pre Nelson days, as with HMS Prince of Wales, the first a Battle Cruiser that fought in WWII . They must be sunk or scrapped before reused. No new HMS Victory any time soon or ever.
@@tonys1636Actually I can think of 3 Ark Royal aircraft carriers
One sunk in WW2,
One that was the subject of a TV series (decommissioned in 1978?)
The last Invincible class "Through deck Cruiser"
@@tonys1636 there have been 5 ships named HMS Ark Royal ! No 1 was flagship of fleet which saw off the spanish Armada in 1588 . Thats why the name is so famous . Probably only flew seagulls then (+flags) . Ark no2 converted merchant ship 1914 . Ark 3 new when ww2 started . Ark4 1955to1979 famous for "sailor" documentary filmed 1976 . Ark 5 was upgraded version of Falklands war Invincible . Fascinating history . Google Ark Royal _ the legend & history .
@@tonys1636 Reusing ships names is from WAAAAYYYY before Nelson. The first Ark Royal was Launched in 1587(Nelson was born in 1758). and there have been 5 Ark Royals. This is a VERY lazy video.
There was indeed a Converted Aircraft carrier called Ark Royal served in WW1. A SEA PLANE carrier. A ship that launched its planes by craning them onto the water.
This is a VERY lazy video.
There was indeed a Converted Aircraft carrier called Ark Royal served in WW1. A SEA PLANE carrier. A ship that launched its planes by craning them onto the water.
Yes please, spend more on defense while UK floods..
The Victory is not just some museum piece, She is the flagship of the home fleet. You also have to remember that in the late '70's the British government decided there was no need for aircraft carriers in the fleet. The ships including Ark Royal & Hermes would be the last. However the R.N. (Royal Navy) are nothing if not adaptable and resubmitted the Invincible class (the projected replacements for the Ark Royal & Hermes) to the government. Instead of calling them 'Aircraft carriers' the R.N. re designated them 'Through deck cruisers' and told the mandarins in Whitehall it was a revolutionary new concept. Et-voila! The designs were green lighted without anyone actually looking at the plans. It was only after the launch of Invincible the government had realized they'd been had. The remaining ships were saved by the Falklands war, where the value of aircraft carriers was proven.
How long would the Victory last against the Gerald R Ford? 60 seconds? Thirty?
@@bernardedwards8461 Thinking like that cost you the Vietnam war.
Considering they might sell HMS Prince of Wales because of cash trouble why would they build another one?
Also the QE aircraft carrier class was obsolete even before it hit the drawing board...
Hms Argus, the first true aircraft carrier. Construction of the Argus began in 1914, and initially it was an Italian liner; it was purchased in 1916 by the British Royal Navy and converted, work being completed in September 1918.
03:06 Absolutely zero credibility for this video. What a waste. Turning it off now.
It all comes down to money and manpower! Ideally we would have three QE's fitted with Electro magnetic launch systems, and a full airwing for each! Currently not achievable unfortunately!
IF ... they were to build a third carrier, it needs to be nuclear powered like its American allies. It also needs to cater for fast carrier jets not just STOVL. To use the sensor fusion and digital information of both UK and US fifth generation aircraft it would need to accomodate F35C aircraft along with EMALS cats and traps. Then it could compete properly (in an allied sense) with US carriers ... and would not be limited to any combat range/theatre of operations circumstances. The UK carriers already have the edge over US super-carriers with elements of automation and lower levels of crewing, but not in sustainability for long operations, and the F35B variant has shorter range and payload compared with its carrier borne F35C variant.
We dont have the aircraft for 1 let alone 3
The carriers we’ve got needed catapults, they’ve made a big mistake for shortsighted savings.
PS; and to HELL with "humanitarian missions"! These are warships and by far their most important role is, if needed, to kill our nation's enemies while retaining a good chance of bringing back their own crews still alive! Same applies to ALL main classes of naval combat vessel; frigates and destroyers even moreso than carriers.
When disaster relief ops are required, by far the best naval ships to send are large, amphibious vessels equipped with the most useful heavy air and sea platforms for the job.
Watched this again, I don't think we need more carriers, maybe a small helicopter amphibious carrier for the fleet. But we need to invest in the 2 carriers, bring them fully inline with the US and France carriers. which will mean fitting catapults, arrestor wires, mirror landing and angled decks, this will provide more flexibility and compatibility with other navel aircraft and most needed an ability to support an AWAC's aircraft.
For a proper maintenance and deployment cycle, they need 4 if they want 1 always on hand. 3 is nice in a pinch to have one mostly available at all times.
What the UK could use is perhaps a full-on UAV support ship.
I'd say yes, on the basis of Donitz' old U-Boat readiness equation, which seems to work as a rough measure for all kinds of ships.
1/3 U-Boats on Station for Duty.
1/3 U-Boats in Port for repairs and overhaul.
1/3 U-Boats trying to travel to or from Duty Areas.
Figuring on a Carrier in overhaul every now and then, that gives much better coverage for the RN if they have three.
Max Hastings has said that the two carriers should be taken into the Atlantic and sunk for all the good they are. I wouldn't go that far but they should certainly have the full gamut of helicopters and fighters to be effective, and that costs more Billions. Beyond that and having wasted money on a 'nuclear deterrent' rather than having enough conventional weapons, the UK can't afford the luxury of projecting sea power overseas whilst lacking even adequately crewed support vessels.
Oh dear, the HMS Hermes that was used in the Falkland War was a different ship to the 1930s ship.
Referring to aircraft being launched off ships, my father, a Royal Marine, was flown off HMS Exeter, a cruiser in 1938 to Lima, Peru to have his appendix out. the following year he was still on Exeter at the battle of the River Plate. The first major sea battle of WWII
I am astounded by most of the comments on here. I very much doubt that ANY senior RN officer is asking for another carrier. Maybe a helicopter carrier (or two) to replace Ocean. But, to be honest, there are many higher priorities. Top of the list is more subs. There certainly won't be a third full size carrier.
The Royal Navy(RN) has neither the hulls nor the personnel to put ONE Carrier Group to sea.
Both of its current aircraft carriers spend an inordinate amount in dock for repairs and maintenance.
The UK needs a third carrier like it needs a hole in the head. Ultimately, the UK simply CANNOT afford a third carrier, given the reality that its armed forces are being reduced in size. The British Army is being cut to an authorised strength of 75,000, which is probably the smallest in its entire history.
Back in reality, ALL Britain’s armed forces are experiencing massive problems regarding recruitment and retention. The existence of the Royal Marines is in doubt.
Another aircraft carrier is way down the list of things the RN needs most. More destroyers, more frigates and more submarines are required much more urgently than a third carrier. Most of all, it needs more personnel to crew them. At present the RN struggles to even crew the ships it already has because of a shortage of personnel. This is where the money needs to be spent.
In a word, no. The RN is already top heavy with not enough escorts, submarines, support ships etc. and there is an on-going budgetary crisis likely to get worse before it gets better. It needs 25-30 destroyers and frigates (currently 16), SSNs in double figures (currently 6) and several thousand more sailors. The personnel, operating budget, support tail/infrastructure and aircraft for a third carrier do not exist and never will. Hopelessly overstretched resources are much better used elsewhere.
if our government stopped wasting money on illegals at £10 million per day we might have the money to do better, they are currently committing financial suicide, and stop all aid to Ukraine too
There are 2 HMS hermes as one was sank in world war 2 and the other as built after and serviced iv the Falkland war and the serviced with the Indian navy till 2017. Its not hard to check this
The UK doesn't;t need a 3rd carrier, two is plenty for us. We have the abilities and expertise to build more if we wish but the need isn't there.
No. What we will need are replacements for 2 LPD, 1 LPH & an avaiation training ship.
We should buy 2 (maybe 3) LHD to replace these 4 platforms.
The UK can’t afford operate two aircraft carriers at the same time. Why would it want a third? The Americans built their carriers and support ships and submarines to protect the carriers. Alone these ships are ripe targets.
The is factually inaccurate on a number of counts. HMS Hermes (R12), deployed during the Falklands War, was not the same ship as HMS Hermes (95) launched in 1919.
HMS Argus and HMS Pegasus were active aircraft carriers during WW1
Now did they mean HMS Trafalgar Nelsons ship or HMS Trafalgar (S107) of the Trafalgar class ??????? love these fact less vids I'm off to find my butty class (That's a canal narrow boat pulled by another narrow boat in the U.K )
No. Why? Because we can't afford the two we've got let alone protect, providion and man them. ☹
Take care of our veterans sleeping rough first.
100% agreed.
Money should be spent on people who need it the most.
World Power membership is costly and wasteful.
Our grandmother served tea to HRH Queen Elizabeth @ Cammell Lairds shipyard in 1950 during the launch of the last HMS Ark Royal. 🙏⚓
A third carrier would possibly enable us to always have at least one at sea.
And the cost comes from???
1 at sea, 1/2 defending our water, if not 2 then 1, and the 3rd can do other things
Sounds cool for UK to have 3 carriers. Although that would be pretty much one for each plane.
the UK needs a new nuclear powered aircraft carrier for future conflicts if war breaks out, we need the programme to start tomorrow.
You people need not one, but two new aircraft carriers. But bigger than the current ones; 310 meters in length, at least.
P.D.
And twice the current number of the other combatants.
The uk has a nuclear policy the prohibits that i think so only astutes and dreadnaught class subs are it
@@jorgeestrada5713the uk carriers are big enough they can carry 72 aircraft at max load
@@rogueshadow4960 . France is making a bigger Aircraft Carrier, 300 meters in length.
Therefore, the Union Jack must be flown on aircraft carriers of at least 310 meters in length.
Why don't they buy an American Nimitz class carrier from America and do it up
They need to retrofit their carriers with catapults so they are not limited to the F-35B.
All that time I served in HMSI Illustrious and it didn’t get a mention. This is a great video ..thank you.
Different Hermes in the Falklands. Sub info is also wrong. You need to do your research
Na only use two, the money they’d use for a carrier divert either to modernising the airforce with f35 a’s or spend it on the army with challenger III’s and other nessessary vehicles and army equipment or by the type 26 and 32 frigates and the type 83 destroyers but keep the type 45 operational as well
Yep, old saying, if you build it, they will come. I hope the UK know what they’re doing. Make sure the following,
1. Have the facilities to land all planes including non VTol planes so, catapult launch requirement. 2. Enough planes to man the bloody ship. 3. Make sure you need the bloody thing.
If we do build a third carrier then it needs to be as automated as possible as manning them is a serious problem. Better still upgrade our existing carriers so that they can carry the F-35C, enabling bigger weapons and fuel payloads.
probably cheaper to build a cat carrier from the ground up, they looked at this while the carriers were being built and it was going to cost more to convert them than build the ship so F35B's it was. what is needed is more aircraft so that the carriers can deploy without taking RAF airframes out of the country, (F35 is good but no aircraft can be in 2 places at once) and more escorts, fixing the carriers we've got so they can get out of port without breaking down would help too!!!!
Need to swap the F35B's for the actual Navy version the USN uses: the F35C. Why the MoD went with the B's is baffling unless they just went with the lighter airframe but at the loss of greater fuel and payload capacity.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the UK already has a helicopter carrier? Also at the moment international NATO cooperation has meant that we can have escort/support from them, we ourselves don’t have enough ships
Helicopters and f35 we can buy
How can the UK afford it, especially since one of them is always having troubles ?
I'm not even half way through and just about to get concussion with the face palming! 🤦
Strictly speaking HMS Argus I49 in WW1 was the first aircraft carrier but she was a conversion. But if we're counting conversions then HMS Furious would like a word. HMS Hermes 95 was the first purpose built and she was sunk in 1942 by Japanese aircraft so how she pops back up again to fight in the Falkland's is quite something. HMS Hermes R12 was a Centaur-class and commissioned in 1954. She was flagship of the task force deployed to the Falkland islands in '82, decommissioned from RN in 1984 and sold to the Indian Navy renamed Viraat R22 and was decommissioned again in 2017, scrapped 2021.
And when did HMS Victory get a total rebuild and conversion to make her a Battleship? 😂
And a "wide variety do aircraft"? Huh? During construction in order to get costs down they removed cats and traps from the design of the QE's drastically limiting what aircraft they can handle. In typical British gov idiocy though there's actual plans for refit already...to install cats & traps so there goes the budget for a 3 or even 4th carrier 😂
For a "continuous at sea..." you really need 4 of something...
Isn't the RN reducing the number of F35-Bs to just 74 and making up the airwings with UAVs?
They likely won't make a decision on that until later, right now they're purchasing them in batches, the first batch is of 48 F-35, currently around 30-40 of those have been delivered, which is why they've more recently committed to a second batch.
Once that is closer to full delivery they'll likely make a decision on whether they purchase more.
Whether that happens or not they will be operating UAVs though, the ones they have been testing have largely been for airborne early warning and other various tasks alongside the F-35.
Make the next a nuclear engine class. Would mean 2 in service at a time, allowing for better maintenance time.
Dont make any
They are a waste
Not only the fact that they don’t have the airframes to be able to have a full complement of aircraft on one carrier they can’t afford to put aircraft on on both.😂
If you're going to run a carrier, you really need at least 3 carriers and 2 carrier air wings.
1 carrier is out to sea, 1 is resting and refitting for deployment, and 1 is undergoing maintenance.
Since you unless you're at war and are desperate all three wont be operating at once you can get away with only two air wings.
The US has 12 carriers but only 9 air wings.
I believe we need a third carrier. Also 18 major surface combatants is woeful. I'd like to see a continuation of the type 26 build to 12 hulls and together with the 6 type 45s , we technically have 18 destroyers with a dozen designated sub hunters. Also I'd like to see 12 type 31 built with the bare necessities and to be upgunned in a short amount of time. That would give us 30 major surface combatants in addition to the 8 opv on constabulary duties. We also need at least 9 attack subs in addition to the 4 nuclear subs.
Would rather build 10 Type 32 that only require 50 people to crew.
The priority has to be more escorts and especially ones that have anti-ship missiles as well as anti-air. The current 2 carriers have NO independent air defence and precious few aircraft
It all rather sounds like a hopeful wish list to Kier Starmer whilst wearing his Father Xmas outfit. It's worth remembering that Russia's Black Sea fleet has been evicted from Sevastopol by the Ukrainians who have no appreciable navy. There are surely enough of a variety of vessels within NATO for joint operations? Ukraine is certainly re-defining the nature of modern warfare using Drones and showing that smaller and remotely operated tech can be extremely effective against a supposed superpower.
You make it sound like Hermes was in service for 60 years, the first Hermes was sunk in ww2, the second was retired in 1984.
It’s common naval doctirine that any navy that operates a carrier fleet will require 3 carriers. One that is in active service, 1 that is undergoing light refit (but which can be quickly brought back to operational status if required) and 1 that is undergoing major refit (and so will be out of action for potentially several years). Having a 2 carrier fleet was insane as it left the RN without a carrier for potentially months or years as the Elizabeth carriers undergo minor and major refits.
How about 0 carriers, 0 amphibious transport docks, 0 destroyers and 0 frigates
I wonder if the state of national economy of the UK will allow a third carrier to (not only) be built, but manned and maintained over the years together with the other two. Considering the deletion of the HMS Eagle (1972 i believe). To my memory that ship was laid off earlier due to finanical problems that escalated in the mid 70-ies. Comment ?
Each aircraft carrier needs to be supported and protected by a whole battlegoup. The UK could not afford or staff such a battle grouo.
The UK's operational policy was/is to work in tandem with a US carrier strike group. The UK could use one more carrier. That way they could always be sure to have at least two on duty and rotate one in and out of maintenance, much in the way we do our carriers and submarines.
I disagree... the UK cannot afford not to....
HMS Hermes was sunk in the second world war and the falklands HMS hermes was a Centaur class carrier built with its sisters Bulwark and centaur not the same carriers
Dosen’t have enough destroyers/ASW Frigates to form an adequate screening battle group
They need more support ships. More type 45's, more global combats. They also need more astutes. need at least 1/3rd more of each before even thinking about a 3rd carrier
Our main problem is lack of personnel: Navy, Marines, Air Force and Army. The U.S. is also facing a rapidly declining force, both in quality and numbers. The use of a drag queen in a recent recruitment drive may explain a large part of the problem.
Can't man ( sorry, i meant people ) the two we've got and don't yet have enough f35s.
This video is poorly researched with a click bait thumb nail.
Odd staement considering both are at sea wef 4/9 With POW on way to US and QE in Pompey for a break after galloping around the Caribbean.
@rossmansell5877 And all they had to do was scrap a hand full of type 23s, put most of the 45s alongside, commandeer half the crews from ships in refit and clear out what remains of the
shore establishments.
RFA is going the same way. Half the ships it had 20 years ago and not enough people to crew them. And that was before they drove smoking/vaping underground. They'll ban beer at sea next, it's just a matter ot time.
25 years RN & 18 in RFA and I've been watching this unfold since 1979. Sorry for the rant shippers.
If they build a 3rd it wont have a ski jump. They know how much that jump has cost them they wont do it again. If they do it it will likely be more like the french super carrier. But what was just described was a navy with only 21 large surface ships and 2 are carriers. It doesn't sound like they have the fleet to support and guard what the have let alone a 3rd carrier.
That was me taking off in Portsmouth.
Russia new missile ends it in 6 mins flight time.
Potentially but don't launch her now, launcher her in 10-15 years so that teh carriers don't go out of date all at the same time again. In the meantime I'd argue we desparately need more decent escorts (T26s or the T83s) unfortunately due to shortsightedness our current carriers not having EMALS probably means we're limited to using stovol aircraft and limited (now ancient) AWACS/AEW radars for the next few decades which will compromise network centric warfare and I suspect may well turn out to be the RNs achilles heal but hey short sighted budgets.
Incorrect there’s 11 nuclear submarines.
Correct, but nevertheless they are insufficient.
They should at least double that stock.
@@jorgeestrada5713 Doubling that Number is stupid better off spending the money on surface vessels.
@@jammiedodger7040 . It's stupid to think that doubling that number is stupid.
@@jorgeestrada5713 Surface vessels are so much more useful as they are a lot more versatile also way better value for money.
Not only does the UK not need another carrier
Not only should the UK have never built the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers
The UK should have never built the Invincible-class carriers
The UK should have fully adopted and committed to the recommendations made by the 1957 Defense White Paper and the UK should have adopted the same reforms made by the Portuguese military between 1961 and 1968
A third carrier? The UK used to have 50 Frigates in the 1970s! So, far from another Carrier, its service fleet is needed! The Navy has been diminished and I am not sure why the UK needed to compete with the US with two mega carriers.
A cost that is hardly sustainable given the loss of the surface fleet to accommodate these giants!
The short answer is yes they need another carrier with additional support ships plus aircraft but it seems unlikely
The Royal Navy should have reevaluated their force design, reconsidering the construction of aircraft carriers, amphibious transport docks, destroyers, and frigates. Instead, they should have focused on anti-access/area denial capabilities, such as sea mines, anti-ship missiles, submerged threats, drones, light surface-attack vehicles, coastal defense submarines, and anti-naval aviation assets.
One example of an effective anti-ship missile system is the anti-ship missile equipped patrolling coastal combatant. These vessels, resembling scaled-up speed boats, would be equipped with large anti-ship missile launchers. The Iranian Peykaap class or the old Soviet Osa class are examples of such vessels.
To create a formidable defense, the country would stockpile a significant number of anti-ship guided missiles and deploy them in concealed locations along the coast or slightly inland. To protect these missiles from cruise missile attacks, decoys would be extensively used. By concealing launchers inside shipping containers, for instance, it would be possible to create multiple decoy launching sites in forested or mountainous areas for every legitimate launcher.
The range of the anti-ship missile systems could potentially extend several hundred kilometers from the coast, depending on the specific system used. Different systems with varying ranges could be intermixed to make invading particularly challenging. For instance, shorter-ranged and more affordable anti-ship missiles could be combined with longer-ranged and deadlier systems like the Russian Bastion coastal defense system.
Is this picture actually 'Battlecarrier' ? with medium calibre naval artillery (10.5-15 cm) battery.
DON'T WATCH.
This video does NOT really discuss the question of the headline. The headline appears as made only to gain revenues for the uploaded.
I'm not sure theirs a straight forward answer, it will depend on cost to fit cats and traps on Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth carrier against cost of one carrier with cats and traps which would add to our fleet.
Will they bring old aircraft back into service for it ? Or use different jets then the F-35s that don’t sound like they are totally reliable the usa is showing with less then 70% operational.
Oh, by the way. I apologize, but does the Royal Navy still have Cruisers? God Bless.
I would classify the two carriers they already have as “temporary on station naval surface/aviation assets.” They are not true long range, blue water, naval assets. They do not have nuclear power and power autonomy. The United States switched to all nuclear power with the Nimitz class carriers because of autonomy of power generation during all operations. They did not need 5,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel for primary propulsion. That saved a lot of space for aviation fuel, more aircraft, weapons storage, crew accommodations, workshops, etc. Nuclear power is the closest thing to renewable energy. Filling up a Kitty Hawk class carrier with 5,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel was quite a headache. Nothing like having unlimited power at see. They can even air condition the hanger bays down below with so much power to spare!