I can just imagine aircraft carriers 100 years from now, fusion powered, railguns that can shoot down orbiting satellites, lasers, cup holders, the lot!
woah woah woah.... slow down! Cup holders?! you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're gonna have to give up at least lasers if you want cup holders.
Aircraft carriers are nearly obsolete today. The United States has 12 (i believe) and hyper-sonic weapons will certainly replace these anachronisms. Expect satellites, autonomous submarines and stealth craft for the future.
@@michaelfromaustin psssh, haven't you seen the avengers? it's clearly going to be the extremely logical and fuel efficient hover carriers. I mean why spend money on small affordable hyper-sonic missiles, when you can spend trillions on slow moving hover carriers? Did I mention they would be captained by Samuel L Jackson? haha
@@richtankone there will always be a need for air supremacy at sea. The usefulness of having a mobile, nuclear powered, and extensively armed floating airport will not be surpassed or planned to be phased out for a long time.
@@BHuang92 The Argentinian naval plan was for a two pronged offensive against the British Task Force. Veinticinco de Mayo's task group to the north, and the General Belgrano's task group to the south. After the Conqueror sank the Belgrano the Veinticinco de Mayo's task group was ordered home. That was the first and only time that Argentinian war ships took part in the Falklands conflict.
Can I just say... as a Brit, this is one of the most pleasant comment sections on the internet. We will always have each other’s back and we respect you guys greatly :-)
TRENT ELSWICK like it or not English colonists founded an English colony to begin the settlement of North America... that includes both Canada and The United States of America...so yes, England is our ‘Mother Country’. The U. S. A. Was not founded by the French, the Spanish or the Germans ( and I am German ), so for me England is still historically the ‘Mother Country’.
I know right.... nuclear isn't even bad for the environment at all, it emits close to nothing. I will never understand why nuclear gets all this hate, it is clearly the future of emissionless power production. More advanced nuclear plants are extremely safe and highly efficient in terms of power produced per nuclear waste. Things like Germany closing all nuclear plants in favour of brown coal plants "for the environment" is absolute madness. I think Chernobyl left this irrational fear of nuclear power in the minds of many people even though it is one of the safest (and cleanest) means of producing power. Environmentalists should adore nuclear power.
@@Timbo5000 Well intentioned people can be mistaken and do the wrong things to help their cause. On top of that, people are very gullible and easy to manipulate, since they are lazy enough to not verify what they are being told, and prefer to listen to other people instead. "[Any God] exists!" "Why?" "Because [Insert Sacred Text] says so!" "Chemtrails are manipulating our brains!" "Why?" "Because [Insert Random Internet Personality] said so!" See? They rarely know why they are believing A or Z. They just swallow it and leave it at that. Curiosity seems to be in short supply. Especially amidst climate activists.
@@Timbo5000 What happens when nuclear warship is sunk or blown up? Where would we be today if all the carriers destroyed in ww2 had been nuclear? as I have seen no evaluation of any environmental impact.
@@iancampbell6925 That's a fair point against nuclear warships. I'm unsure what exactly would happen and the extent to which the nuclear reactor would be exposed.
@Nobody Knows I made no assumption prior. However I will make now the assumption that you didn't even bother to read my comment til the end. I'll do the TL;DR version: environment activists *want* to save the environment. In that sense they're well intentioned. And yet, I call them: mistaken, lazy, gullible and naive to no end. In what capacity did I misjudge them? Now, you seem to be unable to see the difference between intentions and acts. One can feel concerned with something, and decide to act in order to change things. But if one is intellectually lazy, he/she will eventually do bad things, out of ignorance and a naive character that render him or her susceptible to many interested manipulations.
Both carriers are incredible feats of engineering and are a compliment to those who designed and built them. As usual your video is very thorough and informative. Thanks for doing the work.
Indeed i got to see the HMS Queen Elizabeth in person when it came to visit and restock in one of our American ports its a beautiful ship just like the Ford and makes for a worthy ally to Aid in any conflicts to come.
Fred Flintstone Aircraft carriers in general are awesome. I stayed on USS Midway (as a floating museum) on a Boy Scout trip and it was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had.
If you think about it they complement each other nicely. If the Ford cant go somewhere because of its nuclear propulsion then send in a QEC. Oil/Gas is also more suitable for the UK as we have our own supply of both, whereas France uses Nuclear because it doesn't have much Oil and has a large Nuclear Power Program.
@@cyborg_v271 The US has some non-nuclear carriers (~6 ish I think) but they call them LHA/Assault ships. They're about 2/3 the size of the HMS QE. The only place they can't go is New Zealand anyway so not a big issue :) Google "USS America LHA"
The UK still fields a formidable Navy to this day. Respect from the USA. You’re a small island nation, but you’ve got a big heart, and a remarkable history, and I think we’ll always be friends.
The UK is not a small nation. Their population is 60+ million inhabitants and they possess the ability to attract clever and active people from all over the world.
But it’s a rather small island. I live smack in the middle of it and to the west, south and east the sea isn’t much more than a hundred miles away! I do really enjoy enjoy this channel, the explanations are very clear and well thought out. We are very proud of our new carriers, which I think specifically answer a British requirement and a British budget, but the US super carriers are simply awesome. Best wishes to all across the pond!
@@kharciv It is, the British isles are could fit in Texas lol. But I know what you mean. Most of the worlds modern history involves Britain at some point
@@bunnygirl95 Texas is huge in area. The UK is even smaller than New Zealand in territory, so what? I believe if we speak about a nation, we should consider the number of its citizens first.
As a former US Navy Nuclear Engineer, I can say with honesty, the United Kingdom with its specific budget and specific need to maximize its projected Naval firepower, has made a VERY GOOD set of decisions in keeping their 2 carriers conventionally powered, and gone with using the STOVL F-35B version. Trying to build and maintain only 2 nuclear powered ships with complete customized systems and reactor plants would have been a long term cost overrun nightmare. The US Navy has nuclear design commonality with all of its Ford class carriers using the new A1B reactors. They are expensive, but that design commonality with over a dozen ships, helps maintain "some" budget efficiency. The UK ships are pretty much akin to the same idea of our small Assault carries that carry the US Marine F-35B (only theirs is much bigger). They're much more cost effective, and much more versatile for the UK that needs a quicker response force. The US Navy has by far the most capability in its Super Carriers, but not without cost, and a more time consuming process to place those assets on station. A Super Carrier doesn't just flip a switch and go out for a spin. Everything the UK did in foregoing the EMALS and Nuclear systems makes complete sense.
If you are you who you claim to be, I wanna say thank you. Too many people acting like they know what they are talking about when it comes to nuclear, well, anything.
I agree the Brits have two potent lethal ships that serve their national needs. The UK and the US have two different Navies, tho compatible and very much working together, the UK has a different view of naval power....the US does not define Naval power, it simply defines naval power based on it's own national objective, to protect their own interest. Same with the Brits. I just pity the nations that have to wake up to these HMS carriers in their harbor.
I had to comment on the clip with the carrier in high seas at around 6:00... That's the USS Kitty Hawk (ironically a conventional carrier). I should know as I was serving aboard her during that storm! Took quite a bit of damage (bent catwalks, lost life rafts, that helicopter by the bow was utterly drenched in saltwater and needed substantial repairs, and an aircraft tug was lost over the side). Love the videos! Keep em coming!
The only issue with British carriers in my opinion is they traded one thing for another. Vtol or stovl makes the ship simpler but the aircraft more complicated. Especially the f35 with its liftfan which will have to prove itself reliable under real combat situations. the Harrier was less capable but simpler.
@@thelovertunisia The Harrier was actually a nightmare of a plane, killing more pilots than pretty much any other semi-modern fighter. The F-35b's use of a lift fan makes it much safer. Despite being unsafe, and despite being a fairly limited fighter, the harrier proved the be very effective in war.
How's that for old and new! I was on the oldest carrier and you on the (or at least one of the) newest subs! You lucky dog. I almost crossrated to torpedomate just to get on a sub!
@@p51mustang24 aircraft from a single CV will usually not get you air superiority so, F-35b can just be used for strategic bombing, recon and let the proper dogfighter aircrafts do that job either from a local airbase or from murican CVs equipped with f-35c's.
@@jshepard152 Why are there leather patches at the knees and elbows of english uniforms ? To better crawl away after having stabbed their friends in the back ...
Did yall hear about the firecracker that went off in the german border warehouse ??? Seems all of the French citizens threw up their hands in surrender when they heard it go off !!!
As an American, I can only feel pride that the only other country to truly have carriers of similar capabilities to ours, is our closest and best ally Great Britain. Yes China is also building a carrier or two, but I would hardly call them modern or reliable. Good on you Mates.
I'm an American and I must say that I have always been impressed by the UK's military. They always seem to get more bang for their buck. Plus, I feel like we have each others back, like even if one of us does something stupid or controversial, the other will try to understand and be supportive. In short, I'm proud to have the UK as an ally :) great video, thank you peace
@@joesmith389 English lad - killed by an American bitch driving on the wrong side of the road. Yanky military whisked her off back to us of a to deny justice for the family. Look it up
USA and UK..allies and friends forever! We make an awesome team. I'm American so of course I am very proud of our navy but I really like the UK's new carriers as well. Both country's carriers are just amazing.
@@wolf359survivor2 After seeing all the contenders for a bunch of US military firearms trials I can confirm that the best looking gun always happens to win. If they made a bullpup that looked cool we'd probably be using it
Instead of saying what I think about the latest carriers, I'm going to say that the Phantoms in those old Royal Navy clips are still good looking airplanes.
cant beat cats & traps. early warning via chopper is terrible at best. lethal at worst (ask the crew of the atlantic conveyer). the idea now that the carriers are going to be multi purpose transports and evac ships is a joke. what was the fudge.. $400m to change to catapults for the RN when the actual figure was $12m... just to make sure that the f35b program stayed alive. we sold HMS ocean, the flagship chopper carrier to the Brazilians for £80m after a £70m refit. Should have just fielded the pitiful number of 12 f35 jets on that. dont get me wrong the new RN beasts are incredible but hobbled by politics from the word go. wrong aircraft, no cats & traps, no nuclear power. no savings. no point. still at least the RAF got to take over control of the FAA eh?
@keith moore even if its not as good as its made out to be, it is a better short take of and vertical landing aircraft than the harrier 2B. Which turns the US standing 10 super carriers in 29 carriers. In total. As now every LHD and LHA in the navy becomes a carrier. And that is the future of carriers, supercarriers are bad in todays modern day land based missles. Smaller faster carriers are better for the future. They can get on station faster, and wont lose as meny people if you lose a single carrier. A LHD and LHA as a population of just under 2000 people, a modern super carrier has close to 5000 and the new ford class is 6000 people. Thats a small town if one carrier goes down.
Good video. As an ex US sailor, it seems the Brits made a good decision here, on the more limited budget. The carriers should be hignly effective in this next century. Our boats being deployed there in the cold war era UK, we always enjoyed our British mates!!
Navy is obsolete now, there should be no navy, its like an excuse to siphon money from real hard working people, the airforce can do what the navy does just as good, deliver troops, airstrikes qnd the lot, due to refueling in mid air, the US is using our money for trash, give it back
+Daniel Dietsche Britain now has an economic liberal as a PM that will mean massive economic growth over the next decade. I doubt we are going to see British battle groups formed similar to the US model which will make the British Navy even more powerful. It will be interesting to see if Britain resurrects more Vulcan aircraft type projects to add to this effect.
We do, and there is an unbreakable bond between us ....but I always feel that the delay in entering both world wars was, the American governments, (not the american people's) way of severely weakening their best ally for the future. Always strikes me as a shameful and strange decision. But what is done is done
@@p__7000 Sadly, very true. We delayed entering WWII far too long. We had isolationist tendencies back then. Thank God you were able to hold on as long as you did. If we had committed sooner, Britian might have emerged from the war stronger, and a stronger Britain is better for western democracy, including the US. Take care!
@@p__7000 This is true, and we should have entered right away. But then, we were probably still a little pissed about you guys burning the White House. But hey, I've had friends start fires at my house , time heals all wounds.We're good with each other now.
@@teaser452 yes but burning a white house, a building, during a war is slightly different..it hardly amounts to the increased deaths of millions of good men and women because you didn't help out your only ally until almost too late. One month later Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and youd have been toast. Once again very shameful and strange decision. But gold can blind..
@@indivestor I'm from Missouri. Y'all is not Texan. I picked it up when I was stationed in Virginia. But if I lived all my life in the Bronx and wanted to say 'y'all', I'm saying 'y'all'. Get a life. At least rent one for the weekend.
It was much more difficult. Hackers absolutely did not hack Nord's encryption. They hacked the insecure server that nord rented. Big difference. Data centers that leave remote access on servers are asking for it.
I overhauled USS Nimitz at Newport News Shipbuilding in 1983-84 after graduating from the United States Merchant Marine Academy. This is an interesting perspective. I am sharing this video with a career nuclear engineer from the shipyard.
@@Mr.SpocksBrain Trump and Johnson are idiots but hardly "the next Hitlers". Trump is corrupt and stupid but he doesnt have the kind of control needed to start a world war on his own initative and while Hitler was evil and made some stupid decisions toward the end of the war he was still a fairly effective leader. When he got into politics Germany was fractured, broke, and heavily divided poltically and he was able to rebuild them into a mostly united country with a massive economy and military. Trump has mostly just farted around the white house making stupid comments and spending recklessly and Johnson hasnt done much of anything besides fall ass first into office. Hitler built up his own private army, started a race war, and carried out covert actions sparking global war largely using his own private military within the German state while Trump can barely keep a single person in a position of power for more than a few months. Hitler executed 12 million of his own citizens, Trump said mean things on TV and Twitter. Hitler was one of the main causes of the bloodiest war in human history, Trump and Johnson mostly just jerk themselves off while blaming all their problems on other people while getting little to nothing accomplished. The worst you can accuse Trump and Johnson of is criminal corruption and incompetence.
As the father of a soon to graduate Mechanical Engineer who has joined the US Navy to be the Nuclear Officer on a fast attack sub, (and after a bunch more schooling on the Navy's dime) I was quite pleased to hear about the safety record of the US nuclear fleet. One of the reason the US Navy has more trained nuclear engineers in its ranks is because of programs like what my son will be going into. It was a long and interesting interview and testing process for him to get into the program, but in the end, he found a new and very interesting career and he gets to serve in the US Navy. Something we are very proud of!
i wish your son all the best in his career....my son is a maritime engineer on the hms prince of wales ...we are proud of them all and our allies in the us
Of course you are right to be proud of your son and US nuclear powered carriers. However the US is a bit of a special case with regards to the navy because of its huge budget and also because many smaller nations even western ones cannot afford these huge expenses. By the way nuclear power for a submarine is hugely advantageous but for a carrier not really because of the need for aviation fuel for the jets which makes pit stops necessary anyway.
I have to vouch for the level of training nuclear submariners receive. That said, military nuclear power is amazing due to the intense power density their NSSS can harness. The British Carriers would have been able to harness one of Rolls Royce cores on their boats. The UK has a strong nuclear industry and experienced supply chain which nobody knows about; Wood, Fraser Nash, Rolls Royce - they would all be able to assist in applying and transferring the current design onto QE class, but would be too much faff and red tape.
QEC can carry up to 72 jets max despite being bit smaller than Ford which carries 75+. QEC also just needs 600 crew to run the ship due to automation and not thousands and has better crew amenities fit for 21st century sailors that demand more comfort. It has the longest runway out of any carrier too, and its jets can land in a conventional way too with SRVL ( Shipborne Roll Vertical Landing ) pioneered technique by the Royal Navy which US Marines boarding soon QE look forward trying as it allows fuel not to be dumped and give more range and weight capacity to the F35B The ship can converted to catobar once Tempest Britains 6th generation jet is ready if needed along with Taranis stealth drone
@@theancientsancients1769 QEC can carry approx 48 jets max but we probably won't put more than 12 on it most of the time. I suspect over its lifetime of 30-40 years it might have 36 jets on it on maybe 3 or 4 occasions during major crises, assuming no major wars occur of course! There just isn't any reason to tie up such a large percentage of our F35s on a ship. Ford is a better pure carrier but we would need to buy 5 for it to make any sense and we just don't have a need or funding for so many carriers with our current foreign policy.
@T R Two reasons - the fuel load for a carrier is huge, AND takes up a lot of volume in the hull that can be better used for jet fuel, ammo, spare parts and equipment, etc. It also greatly reduces the need for oilers. On many deployments we don't need them at all - for example, in the Persian Gulf a carrier can stay on station for months, while other ships of the task force rotate out to refuel at friendly ports nearby. They still may need jet fuel during such a long deployment depending upon operation tempo - but they carry enough fuel for about 1,000 sorties, and in many areas that can if needed be extended by having the jets land for fuel at an airbase before returning, or more commonly, using in flight refueling from land based tankers so that they don't arrive with dry tanks and need little fuel from the 3 million gallon stores aboard. Also, in the long run refueling a carrier with conventional fuel is more costly. There is one further advantage on a modern carrier - especially the newest ones - massive electrical power generation capability. With their reliance on modern electronics and the switch to electromagnetic catapults rather than steam that is increasingly important.
I think the biggest advantage is having two carriers for less money. Don't get me wrong the benefit to wider society through the technological development that is required to produce the nuclear ships must be huge. But simply from a strategic point of view, having twice the number of carriers for the same budget makes more sense. Could you imagine the US navy having twice the carriers in it's fleet that it currently sails?
@@Stuffandstuff974 Except that these cost about 75% of the cost of a Ford class supercarrier and are not as capable. They are excellent ships to be sure, but your contention of a 2 to 1 ratio is just out of line. But thanks to the F-35, the Queen Elizabeth class can be a very potent weapon. Having 25% more less capable carriers is not necessarily a good choice.
@@Stuffandstuff974 The video is wrong then. A US carrier costs a bit over $12 billion, this cost well over 6 billion pounds - so well over $8 billion. Maybe the producers just looked at the numbers and forgot about the value of the currency. But a US carrier can carry a few more fighters than the QE, along with important aircraft such as the Naval variant of the AWACS that the QE cannot launch or recover. US carriers have even landed and launched C-130s - though I doubt this is something one would do regularly. They have another advantage that to my knowledge has not been needed or used yet, which is switching task forces. By that, I mean something like an exercise run in the early eighties. The Nimitz went through the Suez with her task force and headed for the Pacific at high speed - too fast for the support ships. When her escorts were running out of fuel, they were near the Philippines, and took on a new task force to escort them without slowing down. Admittedly, if we did not have large naval bases all over the world, that capability would mean nothing - but we do. There is also the concept of the submarine/carrier task force. It has its drawbacks, but fast attack subs can go as far and fast as a carrier. They are not good for air or missile defense, but send them fr enough downrange in a war situation and they can kill most anything that might be planning to attack the carrier - in theory, allowing them to operate with near impunity as long as they have fuel for the jets, and food for the crew.
Incite The Millennium - They tried. Couldn’t get the reactor to be small enough while also having proper shielding for the pilot. The 2 reactors they made are actually sitting outside the world’s very first nuclear reactor site. It’s a museum now.
Thats how vertical landing planes land on a carrier. They come up beside the ship and side slip over the deck in order to minimize the effect of jet wash
We don't have enough fleet ships, aircraft or crew to support two in operation, so why would we build a third? The Prince of Wales should have been called the Ark Royal... even Prince Charles has said he's fine with the idea of changing the name.
What about Illustrious or Formidable? Those were beautiful aircraft carriers during WWII as well smh they named an aircraft carrier with the same name as one of the famed battleships of WWII but didnt even consider HMS Hood....
@curiousdroid Nimitz class aircraft carriers use A4W reactors, and the USS Enterprise used A2W reactors. Other than that slight error, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. I served on CVN 76 for two years in the aft reactor plant so I'm very familiar with the benefits of using nuclear propulsion.
Gerg C guess you didn’t watch the video 🤣. He clearly stated the US Navy’s record of melting down reactors. Get a dictionary and do some research before claiming about coal power for foundational grid loads and sea ships.
I’m a know-nothing about this stuff but found this exploration of nuke vs. oil fueled war ships to be thorough, well organized, and persuasive. Thanks for the effort.
@Anglus Patria Eddie was a complete amateur who decided that England didn't have an Olympic ski jump team, so he would do it. He'd never done it before. He was heralded by everyone but the British Gov't, who made him withdraw from the competition. That's when I knew Britain was in serious trouble, and their response to the take-over of their nation by Sharia Law has born that out.
@@kevinbendall9119 love how you have went from eddie the eagle to sharia law, brilliant. think that particular bit of propaganda has ran its course now though, we`re all about the brexit conspiracies these days.
@Randy Bobandy But it still doesn't matter in the end, as fossil fuel is easier and safer to handle quickly, whereas refueling a reactor takes almost a whole day to do safely. As long as the ship does it's job, who really cares (except environmentalists)?
@@specialopsdave wtf? it takes longer then a day to refuel a naval reactor... that is why they last for 25 years! technically, they could last longer. the amount of money saved from building a reactor that lasts this long vs the fuel used for the same missions on a conventional carrier... lets just say you can buy 7 more reactors for the same amount of money in fuel. as for fossil fuels... tell me how many times a naval ship had a reactor meltdown ever, and how many times in the past 4 months a conventional ship had a fire that was fueled by the fuel... then tell me again how 'fossil fuels' are safer....Idiots....
@@FNLastname I never said that. Classic naval reactors have 1 year fuel supplies, and petroleum ones have 1 month supplies. I never said nuclear was worse. It's just that, if you watched the video, you'd realize it makes little sense for England because of initial+maintenance costs. Obviously nuclear is the superior source (and yes, far, far safer: I've known this for years), but -the initial cost required to achieve this- -safety isn't worth it if you rebuild them- -every 8 years like Britain does.- For the US who needs to be able to haul ass across the whole Pacific, petroleum would be drop-dead stupid. But for Britain who keeps the ships docked 99% of the time, a reactor sitting offline that often is much more expensive in the end, especially when the US can just send their ships to help Britain with any long range missions. I said safer to handle *quickly*. Nuclear is safer but much slower to fuel, and you don't leave offline reactors fueled, so Britain couldn't respond quickly. The US however, leaves their ships running and only refuels when depleted, not because their fuel was removed for long-term docking.
When you have to military on a budget. Though, the lengths Britain went through to just land a single bomb on a runway in the Falklands showed a real hole in 1970's-1980's military planning.
@@fakshen1973 Yea if the argies had waited just a little longer those tiny carriers would have been decommissioned and they wouldn't have had anything at all. That war was won by the skin of their teeth. These days the uk military wastes its budget on things like women, had to pay out 100k when they were injured marching along side men alone, because you know, its unfair that men are taller.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech yes but choosed the most expensive fighter jet in the world that still has problems and in some years GB will be behind U.S china and maybe russia in the naval power and agility so IMO if you lack the infrastructure just focus on building one. Budget is another thing but still they choosed f35 so
At the first indication that someone can't handle it, they are removed from the program. It had a 60% drop rate when I went through. You didn't even see a real reactor until you had nearly a year of training.
As an American I love the American Super Carriers, but the new British design is a beautiful ship, and if it gets the job done, for cheaper, that's a win, win for the Royal Navy.
40rty I visited the American carrier G W Bush when it came into port in Portsmouth last year. Such a cool visit and loved how it felt like a working ship below flight deck.
I enjoyed it as well, I'm an Englishman who was wondering why we got rid of our flag carriers and sea harrier fleet before actually having a replacement. A little bit shortsighted given the prime minister signed the Armed Forces Covenant and then it took another decade for QE to put to sea.
Both carriers have their pros and cons but nuclear is King however given the UK already had the support craft set up for a non-nuclear carrier and doesn't have the budget they probably made the right decision
Plus the lessons learnt from previous wars, smaller is sometimes better and the fact the aircraft we use don't require as much landing space. Plus we are extremely small group of islands compared to the US lol 😂
Couldn't agree more. Was an obvious choice by the UK. Droid does a fabulous job explaining the differences in capability (behind the scenes like decommissioning et. al.) between the UK & US and demonstrates the case for non-nuclear in understandable terms.
@@LongdownConker When Boris grows the UK economy we may see more capabilities added such as nuclear carriers and so on. UK has the know how it just needs the economic drive and government to carry it out. More anti aircraft ships are needed in the UK capacity.
@@LongdownConker UK has a much larger global footprint that people realize. The UK needs more than those two carriers but they could be a good foundation for better capacity. The UK next needs to build battle groups around those carriers so that they are capable of service in full scale global warfare. If this was the case the UK could become second to the US in global naval warfare with the likes of China and Russia being left far behind.
@@bighands69 "wen Boris grows the UK economy" is a party big assumption. No prime minister is ever guaranteed to grow the economy, much less in these uncertain times of Brexit. I don't think the UK needs nuclear carriers anyway. For one thing the carriers are ecomponied by an aunturage of ships anyway so its not issue to have a fuel vessel there. Then there is the fact that we use the F-35b, which does not need nearly as much landing space, therefore the ships don't need to be as big so don't need as big of a power source. Then there is the fact that in previous wars the UK has found that the bigger nuclear powered ships aren't as effective in rough seas. We have ships to suit our needs and to compliment our allies not compete with them
It always shocks me people trust security companies like Nord VPN after they not only get hacked but then dont really do much to fix the issue, and then lie about it and dont tell people about it. The very least they could do, the bare bones minimum, is tell their customers "oh hey, we got hacked, you might want to change some passwords".
As always, your presentation was well reasoned,even-handed, and packed with highly informative content. Your research is extremely high quality. I look forward to all of your content. You tube has some great researchers : you, Scott Manley, The Everyday Astronaut, Marcus House.What a fascinating time we live in! Keep up the good work. :)
All things considered, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want 2 for the price of 1... goes without saying the nuclear reactor lobby in the US made a few senators some hefty "donations"!
@@paulcarey1708 Nuclear carriers are good choice but you need 5+ before it starts to be economical. The US has 10 or 11 nuclear carriers so the numbers work out. They DO have non-nuclear smaller carriers called assault ships (LHA) too. Google "USS America LHA"
@@brazeiar9672 for the USA its not about economics. its about the differences it has to be the game changer in a hot war..the range it has the speed across the ocean.. the ability to stay at war much longer then the opponent and the size also allows many more jets plus the catapult allows a full ordinance of wepons to be carried during takeoff..the start of any war can be the difference in an outcome..so the nuclear and catapult and size allows the game changes needed to win.
The U.K. carriers,are the best soloution, when you don’t have the mega budget, of the U.S. I cannot see any downsides. Also, they look great,with the twin Islands design. Thank you for great videos.
Great video. Love the QEC carriers, as I think they fit what the UK needs brilliantly--the UK is always pragmatic and these carriers are no exception; they're well designed, capable, and fit what the Brits need. The USN has a different mission, and therefore needs different carriers. My husband served on 6 different carriers (Enterprise, Nimitz, America, Lexington, Carl Vinson, and Kittyhawk) during his 20-year career with the USN, so I have the utmost respect for USN Carriers and the projection of power. As always, glad the UK and commonwealth nations are our closest allies.
@@@sfall616 who is clearly a Russian trying to pretend to be American. Why so aggressive? he was merely being accurate. I'm tired of these Russians trying to hurt the relationship between the Brits and our brothers in arms!
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / clearly you’ve never been on one these ships so let me enlighten you. With multiple nuclear reactors providing power to the ship they can hold enough jet fuel to fly for much longer than most conflicts last, and food is the same deal. And with food if need be it can be delivered (air dropped, or ship delivered) while the ship is in an AO. And the aircraft can be refueled in the air almost indefinitely
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / nuclear crew? Nuclear aircraft were considered back in the day, engines and aircraft were built but they scrapped it due to expense and the potential for radioactive contamination
Never paused to consider that US carriers may have unlimited range, yet none of their escorting ships do, rendering that range functionally a total wash. Very good point/thought there.
@mPky1 Unless you want more aircraft on the same size aircraft carrier, or to deploy said jets somewhere where standard planes couldn't operate or maybe you just want to be able to land your fighter on....oh I don't know a random Spanish cargo ship you spotted. :D
@mPky1I didn't miss it, it was already mentioned and not something I would argue against, seems a reasonable statement. As for no point having more aircraft with lighter weapon loads, how do you feel about seats in cars? no point in cars because buses exist? I'm sure you will concede that that's a silly argument, the same logic can be extended to more aircraft. Situational? true but so much is, take nuclear vs traditional power plants for aircraft carriers both have their merits depending how they are intended to be used. (edit for passing thought, I kinda want to watch formula one bus racing now :)
@mPky1 The point I obviously failed to make is they are different vehicles with different uses, claiming VTOL jets are the same as traditional is equally erroneous. I thought the more cars analogy would also highlight the ability to go more places at the same time compared to one bus. Another point would be what happens if the bus gets blown up by anti bus missile, taking it's formidable seating capabilities out of the equation, perhaps in this situation it would be better to have more vehicles at your disposal albeit with fewer seats on each vehicle. Remember I am not the one arguing that one approach is better than the other, just that both approaches have their merits situationally.
@mPky1 Ok you are entitled to your opinion, ofc the fact that actual armed forces use VTOL leads me to believe that the professionals probably understand the situation a lot better than you. I can easily understand some of the reasons behind their use and have explained them to you in the simpliest way I know how. The fact you still don't get it imo says more about you than I. Prehaps watch some interviews with actual pilots and prehaps it will sink in. Nice chatting, if a little frustrating.
the british navy also has an ace in the hole that allows them to keep a smaller carrier force more suited to a falklands war event and that is, if the doo doo gets serious and plenty deep, the british know that most likely some of those giant american aircraft carriers will show up on scene to join the fight.
The Yanks never showed up before and were batting for the Argies. And you trust Trump or his successors? Btw those 'giant' carriers are only 150 feet longer in the bow..
@@1chish you mean youre so fucked in the head you never heard of WW2 or WW1 and no america wasnt helping argentina, we gave the british shrike missiles
@Frank Green Likely that's at best cruising speed... thing is, carriers doing flight ops spend a lot more time at top speed than typical Navy ships, so their effective range is likely to be a lot less. Nuke carriers, of course, don't need to worry about range - they can go for two decades or more between core replacements.
@Frank Green So 5000 miles operational radius as you need to come back and zero days in the area you intent to operate in. How many oilers does it take to keep it operating per week?
Basically these ships never go anywhere without a massive flotilla so nuclear power, while great, is actually no real bonus because the fleet that protects it still needs fuel ... also the planes need fuel too.. so it never gets severed from it's need for refueling anyway
I worked with a guy who was navy in the Falklands, maintenance on a type 42, he said the prob with nuclear is that its ultimately steam plant and the steam is highly corrosive, so maintenance costs are high, nuclear makes sense in an all out war where you need ships quickly that do not need refueling and don't expect them to last long, but for long life span ships in peacetime maintenance costs are a lot less on non nuclear ships
@Tom Ryan You are not ready to discuss this with that kind of view. Tell me the reason 1) why Nuclear powered is a must when their forces rarely operates in extteme range, 2) Why catapult when they dont have naval fighters that the catapult is a must.
"The Advanced Arresting Gear has been given a green light to recover all propeller and jet aircraft, to include the C-2A Greyhound, E-2C Hawkeye and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and E/A-18G Growler, (except for its new stealth fighter) the Navy said." The catapults work well with heavily loaded planes. (Bombs, fuel, rockets, etc.) In the Pacific ocean, keeping unfriendly planes at a distance from the aircraft carrier sometimes requires a large fuel load. Having said that, I admire the new British Carriers.
Not quite true. The crewing alone of the Ford is 4,500 with all the hotel, messing and other spaces needed for such a big crew. The QE needs just 1,600. The nuclear power plant and associated steam and water systems take up way more space than the MT30s (that sit in sponsons under the two islands) or the Wartsilla diesels in the bottom of the ship. Where do you think the extra 30,000 tons of displacement comes from? the two ships are within a 150 feet in length the same size.
1chish understood, however that was one of the biggest reasons the US Navy decided to get away from conventional powered carriers, you have to remember the US has roughly 3 times the number of aircraft on one of their Carriers. Far more “capable” then the British. Don’t get me wrong, I have mad respect for the British Carriers as well as their Navy. Cheers!
@@eyebok Thanks for the respect but you need to re-appraise the numbers. A QE will embark some 24 F-35s as well as Merlins in peacetime exercises. However it can also supply other air assets as needed. A completely different air capability would be needed for large scale disaster relief for example. The RN has published deck plans showing it can park 45 F-35s on deck and still carry out flying sorties. It can house a further 30 in the hangar space. A Nimitz will embark some 60 / 70 all the time as the US Navy cram the decks while the RN never has. Even the Skipper of QE was on record as saying '60+ aircraft'. So its not '3 times' and the aircraft once airborne are as capable as anything the US Navy has and possibly more versatile. Its just a different (and far cheaper) way of doing the same job.
The Debate with rules, really! Plugs, Beelzebub Joe Biden's crime FAMILY is off limits in any debate, in Russia/China GATE!! Perhaps November 3RD. 2020 will convince The People of the United States, that Criminals votes won't be counted by the Nine Justices on The Supreme Court, Vote out all Dummocrats and Republicans In Name only (RINO's) Its time to Register at the Poles , vote at your local Poles take 2 pieces of ID and re-register, do it now not online in person, then make a date with history on November 3 RD. 2020 walk into the Sunlight vote in person, its that important! We weren't able to add your reply. Please try again. FB' sensors , really! 4 more years to drain the swamp on the Patomic DC! General Flynn is a Soldier, taking Slings and Arrows for us Citizens exposing a corrupt judicial system, you can fix this Vote November 3rd 2020! FB assess CCP Corvid 19 wont stop Trump
Great job in analysis and explanation. Makes me think when it comes to nuclear the issues with decommissioning are often sidelined as a "Future me" problem.
decommissionning of nuclear reactors is a fake problem, a lie spread by greenpeace. look in the US, there already a bunch of nuclear power plants that have been decommissioned and "returned to grass" as they say.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 This is about the cost of decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier as a running cost vs a fossil fuel carrier. Take your rambling elsewhere.
@@olliewills1227 it seems you have misinterpreted some of the facts. NordVPN leaked their wildcard TLS certificate and didn't let their customers know until it was public knowledge which was 18 months later, there has been no reports on people's leaked data. Your misinformation is easily debunked and it can cause NordVPN to look innocent when they are clearly are not innocent. Here's a list on this topic: ruclips.net/video/CBJZFTy_SAc/видео.html ruclips.net/video/G1thc5DSHwA/видео.html techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was-hacked/ ruclips.net/video/VrME4kn15rQ/видео.html (prior to the hack, abstract but related to NordVPN)
As a British person, I have always felt the 'Special Relationship' was a British deceit. Seems the US party in power could give a damn about any foreign relationship
Do you two morons think the U.K government and industry spent millions in the 1970's developing a means to reduce aircraft performance? "I heard..." from whom, Soaringtractor or Private Pyle? You will find the ramp assists take-off performance. Every Navy in the world building any size carrier utilises a ramp. Their architects and engineers will have tested and validated the idea separately from the U.K. The U.S likes and understands the 18th century technology with which it is familiar.
@@photoisca7386 It doesn't reduce performance, but most certainly limits it. Also, France would disagree, as would many of the people involved in the _Queen Elizabeth_ class' developmental lineage.
@@peterson7082 With catapult/arresting wire you get better takeoff weight, range, no system to thrust the aircraft up/down, variety of aircraft (turboprop, slow, fast), multiple aircraft can ready and takeoff at the same time, safety...
I enjoyed your presentation. It was informative and easy to understand without adding unnecessary criticism of USA. The two Brit carriers seem like a good fit for our closest ally. Hope they never have to be use in anger.
John Hendrix I was referring to one of the other commenters who said we spent a lot on defense and zero on health care. I wish I had replied directly to his comment. Sorry You are right that our carriers are the best possible ship on the seas. I am glad that the Brits can make a quality carriers for less money.
Steve Broome no need to apologize I was just making a statement lol. I’m also glad that the British are taking action to rebuild their navy, anything’s better than what France does. (Which is sit back and make other countries fund or fight for you)
Video: Nuclear Vs Non Nuclear Aircraft Carriers HMS Gotland: How to sink an Aircraft Carrier in 2 steps. Step1, activate invisibility mode, step 2, sink it.
Let’s be honest here, the biggest reason the UK was able to go with a lesser carrier like this is almost solely owing to two points. First, it doesn’t seem to be built to operate in a peer state, real war environment. American nuclear carriers are so because war planners envisioned a battle group having to make 30+ knot sprints across the Atlantic to outpace submarines and roving satellites. The ocean is a big place and that sort of “strategic” speed is a carrier’s best defense. This class seems designed more to loiter offshore in the sandbox and drop bombs on camel farmers. The USN literally built nuclear cruisers so that in the event of an attack, they could keep up with the carrier across the length of the entire Atlantic. Second, the Royal Navy knows that in the event of the aforementioned peer state conflict, this carrier will operate alongside USN groups. That means AEW coverage, COD service, and all the other things that the indigenous UK carrier has no hope of providing itself. Any carrier is better than no carrier and I’m glad the RN is getting some relevance back, but I wish they’d have just spent the last 25%.
Your criticism of the QEC's capabilities is true, now. But I don't think that aircraft development for the QEC is over with the purchase of the F-35's. The QEC would benefit greatly from a drone AEW aircraft that was much lighter and used less fuel than a manned AEW aircraft. The US Navy is also very interested and involved in developing such UAV's as well. An unmanned, long range cargo service (COD UAV) is much more problematic. I strongly suspect, without any evidence but history, that protecting the Falkland Islands may be one of several missions that the QEC is designed for.
30 knot sprints are useless when you’ve got long range aircraft with cruise missiles or now hypersonic missiles. The US hasn’t faced a competent enemy since WWII
Just to keep the record straight. The Nimitz class are powered by A4W reactors. I qualified on A1W, A2W, and A4W reactors and no naval engineering type would seriously compare any conventional large ship to a nuke. There are many advantages for the air wing and for the ability to have long high speed runs. Great video though. Very interesting as are his other. Different perspectives are always important to hear.
Ultimately as the video explains, those advantages just aren't worth it - it's more about explaining that than the comparison. The UK has a $60 billion budget, a ship like that would eat 10% of it without overruns, diesel delivers far better value. Pragmatism and prudence, words the English love, won out, as is made clear in the video. Maybe the compact reactors of the future will be cheaper and more accessible to small navies (hopefully a compact MSR is in the works or on the horizon at least).
The new reactors for the ford class have a core that designed to last the life of the hull. If/when they need refueling there will be much larger mx concerns at the same time that will probably justify scrapping the ship. Even then, the 'old' reactors in the Nimitz and Las Angeles class submarines are getting 30 years on their original cores, so they've got 15+ years of operation beyond break-even with life left after the re-core.
Did you factor in the cost of the F35B into the carrier, as that's the only plane we could operate after selling all our Harriers to the US Marines for spares. In short, I think the lack of a catapult launch seemed like a very short sighted cost cutting measure, tying us into buying some of the most expensive planes on the planet. Far be it for me to suspect the UK Govt sold us out in exchange for some brown envelopes from across the pond, they've never done that before have they... *cough*
Per unit the F-35B isn't actually very expensive, in fact I believe it's now about the same, if not lower than the Typhoon. The big costs were for the initial development of the aircraft.
One critical limitation of ski jumps is the payload capacity of the aircraft, especially the capability of returning with heavy ordinance onboard. You can pretty much land a fully-loaded F-18 or F-35C on a CATOBAR carrier with no issues once some fuel is burned off.
They now have the option for SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) on the QE class which allows them to bring back much more weight than a vertical landing if they want now, so that isn't as much of an issue anymore.
An interesting fact about the 2 bridges: the English realise that a carrier is a giant floating target and would most likely get hit by missles so they went for a 2nd bridge as redundancy
I was wondering about that myself. Thanks! I assumed the forward bridge was for the CO & OOD conning the ship and the after bridge for the Air Boss conning flight ops. Thanks for clearing that up.
yes, I have noticed that element, too. IIRC the second tower also houses a second funnel. Again, for redundancy. I don't recall anyone stating a top speed... any insights to report?
@@jackmack1061 when she was on builders trials, they had to leave the AIS on as she was in civilian hands, she tipped over 32 knots. Prince of Wales has done the same. Each island houses down and uptakes for the 4 base load diesel generators. The ships also have a Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine generator under each island for boosting their power to 80000 megawatts for the prime movers - 4 electric motors, plus the additional hotel and other power requirements for the ship. There is a huge dispersal of power supply around the ships which are therefore very hard to take out with one hit. They dont have engine rooms like conventional ships, just lots of smaller generators dotted all over. This makes for much better compartmentalisation. Tough nuts to crack!
@ Science Chap Thanks for the info. And yeah, the value of compartmentalised power generation could be enough to win a war sometime not too far in the future. Interesting times...
"a safety record second to none" Well, that's because there hasnt been a full on naval clash in all these years since their Ships went Nuclear. One of these ships sinking would be disasterous.
@@haexrow05 would like to remind you that during war games a Swedish diesel electric sub snuck past a us battle group and 'torperdoed' a us nuclear carrier' you can't always prevent being hit in war
@Roger Dodger all it takes is one sunken nuclear ship to cause absolute chaos to the rest of the world. And before you say anything about the US's scorpian, that (probably) wasn't shot at
@@olivergoad5160 Doesn't work like that in reality. Carriers drive around fast in open ocean, diesel subs can't chase and hunt in open ocean without surfacing to recharge. This is naval tactics 101, the US just wanted to get funding for a torpedo defence system and cooked up this excuse. The real threat is nuclear powered subs operated by China and Russia but that's too close to the truth to talk about!
@@brazeiar9672 There are countless nuclear reactors at the bottom of the oceans of the world, the US has lost two nuclear subs and the Russians around 5. None of them brought on Armageddon.
I feel like carriers are developing the same issue that surface warships developed up to ww2: they keep making them bigger and beefier. I really don't think that's necessary. Less is more.
I wish we had been a little more agressive and went with a MSR reactor, although back when it was on the drawing board almost everyone had forgotten about MSRs, because you don't need a pressure vessel they can be made significantly smaller, refuelling is a breeze if you go with a fast reactor as you can just drain the reactor and fill it up with new fuel, you can even much more easily reprocess the fuel as it's already in a fluid state, as there is no need to melt down the fuel rods then deslove them in a salt, then make new fuel rods out of the fairly radioactive fuel. With a fast MSR breeder, you just take out the fission products and stick it right back in your reactor, which a few of those fission products are quite useful and valuable, so you can pay for the reprocessing step by selling the fission products; actually making the step cheaper than just putting in fresh fuel. Which I admit fuel is cheap, but the waste is not cheap to deal with which is your real advantage, and in the case the cost of the processes of refuelling would be cheaper. The decommissioning should technically be easier, although the reactor would still be radioactive, although an order of magnitude less than the fuel and should be safe in about 50 years as long as you build the reactor out of appropriate materiel. If you keep reprocessing the fuel until all the actinides are burned up, your fuel is safe after 300 years and is actually safer than when you dug it up. Which you can reliably contain things for 300 years, it's when you are talking about 10k years where a hole host of things could happen in that time, 10k years is literally on geological time scales where geology would have changed.
@@Accessless The water solubility of Uranium is a problem in and of it's self. So I don't really see it as much more of an issue. If you lose containment you are already fucked because in a water cooled solid core reactor you are going to blow that fuel everywhere. If you lose inter containment in a MSR you don't need a huge outer containment vessel to take that 1000x increase in water's volume when it turns into gas, so you can with that mass just create a stronger, but dimensionally smaller containment vessel. You could make the containment vessel so strong that as long as you are constantly burning the actinides it would last 300 years on the sea bottom which is long enough for the fission products to decay.
"With a fast MSR breeder, you just take out the fission products and stick it right back in your reactor, " Etheoma, much much easier said than done. And vastly more cheaply said than done, too.
@@Ferndalien First I would like to point out that the reason reprocessing is as expensive as it is now is because you have to melt down the highly radioactive fuel, and then make it into new fuel rods, with an MSR you skip both these steps which actually constitute most of the steps in reprocessing solid fuel, and therefore most of the cost. Actually no you put the actinides back in the reactor, you take the fission products out, and they stay out and that is your waste stream. Sorry that was my bad. And the point is not that the process is cheap, it is that if in a process you can separate out the valuable fission products your net cost for reprocessing on the whole should be cheaper. And in one of the proposed Fast MSRs you don't have to reprocess for the first 20 years, as you actually want the fission products to build up to reduce the melting point of the salt. So there is time to develop cheap methods of reprocessing even if you could install a bunch of these reactors right now.
In the UK, a guy with a ladder coming to fix your sat dish is called a satellite engineer. Everyone who lived and worked here for a few years can figure out the real reason behind the selection of hydrocarbon-based propulsion over a nuclear one (and let's not call it electric here, please...) for the flagship of UK Navy.
No I have to disagree you, forgot the most important factor, that there is a bar on HMS Queen Elizabeth, and therefore is the better ship.
Yeah but it’s just not the Winchester
evan barr not US ships
David Francisco Ive never been on a ship that wasn’t registered out of some 3rd wold nation. So u.s registered ships have prohibition at sea?
Damn, there's a bar? Clearly better.
leo Ng I like a pub
I can just imagine aircraft carriers 100 years from now, fusion powered, railguns that can shoot down orbiting satellites, lasers, cup holders, the lot!
woah woah woah.... slow down! Cup holders?! you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're gonna have to give up at least lasers if you want cup holders.
Aircraft carriers are nearly obsolete today. The United States has 12 (i believe) and hyper-sonic weapons will certainly replace these anachronisms.
Expect satellites, autonomous submarines and stealth craft for the future.
@@michaelfromaustin psssh, haven't you seen the avengers? it's clearly going to be the extremely logical and fuel efficient hover carriers. I mean why spend money on small affordable hyper-sonic missiles, when you can spend trillions on slow moving hover carriers? Did I mention they would be captained by Samuel L Jackson? haha
Can you say starship enterprise?
@@richtankone there will always be a need for air supremacy at sea. The usefulness of having a mobile, nuclear powered, and extensively armed floating airport will not be surpassed or planned to be phased out for a long time.
The lesson of the Falklands, any carrier is better than no carrier.
The Argentinians had a carrier near the Falklands; just that they couldn't launch any aircraft due to bad weather.
@@BHuang92 like have mom, just dead...
@@BHuang92 The Brits had their carrier in the same waters and they could launch.... not much of an excuse, eh?
@@BHuang92 The Argentinian naval plan was for a two pronged offensive against the British Task Force. Veinticinco de Mayo's task group to the north, and the General Belgrano's task group to the south. After the Conqueror sank the Belgrano the Veinticinco de Mayo's task group was ordered home. That was the first and only time that Argentinian war ships took part in the Falklands conflict.
@Zend Avesta Unless we get half an inch of snow or some 'leaves on the line'..
Can I just say... as a Brit, this is one of the most pleasant comment sections on the internet. We will always have each other’s back and we respect you guys greatly :-)
🇺🇲 🇬🇧 Same from the USA. God save the queen.
Much love to the ‘ Mother Country’ from the U.S.A. ....We will always have Britain’s back.
TRENT ELSWICK like it or not English colonists founded an English colony to begin the settlement of North America... that includes both Canada and The United States of America...so yes, England is our ‘Mother Country’. The U. S. A. Was not founded by the French, the Spanish or the Germans ( and I am German ), so for me England is still historically the ‘Mother Country’.
Happy to be able to show a bit of humanity
Yes! Have some tea with me! Good morning! Good morning! Duuuuh... good morning!
You seem to be a very pleasant person.
Forgive my antics and jokes.
"Nuclear is evil, it's dangerous for the environment!"
"So what you're gonna use?"
"Diesel and gas of course!"
🤦♂️
I know right.... nuclear isn't even bad for the environment at all, it emits close to nothing. I will never understand why nuclear gets all this hate, it is clearly the future of emissionless power production. More advanced nuclear plants are extremely safe and highly efficient in terms of power produced per nuclear waste. Things like Germany closing all nuclear plants in favour of brown coal plants "for the environment" is absolute madness. I think Chernobyl left this irrational fear of nuclear power in the minds of many people even though it is one of the safest (and cleanest) means of producing power. Environmentalists should adore nuclear power.
@@Timbo5000 Well intentioned people can be mistaken and do the wrong things to help their cause. On top of that, people are very gullible and easy to manipulate, since they are lazy enough to not verify what they are being told, and prefer to listen to other people instead.
"[Any God] exists!"
"Why?"
"Because [Insert Sacred Text] says so!"
"Chemtrails are manipulating our brains!"
"Why?"
"Because [Insert Random Internet Personality] said so!"
See? They rarely know why they are believing A or Z. They just swallow it and leave it at that. Curiosity seems to be in short supply. Especially amidst climate activists.
@@Timbo5000 What happens when nuclear warship is sunk or blown up? Where would we be today if all the carriers destroyed in ww2 had been nuclear? as I have seen no evaluation of any environmental impact.
@@iancampbell6925 That's a fair point against nuclear warships. I'm unsure what exactly would happen and the extent to which the nuclear reactor would be exposed.
@Nobody Knows I made no assumption prior. However I will make now the assumption that you didn't even bother to read my comment til the end. I'll do the TL;DR version: environment activists *want* to save the environment. In that sense they're well intentioned. And yet, I call them: mistaken, lazy, gullible and naive to no end. In what capacity did I misjudge them? Now, you seem to be unable to see the difference between intentions and acts. One can feel concerned with something, and decide to act in order to change things. But if one is intellectually lazy, he/she will eventually do bad things, out of ignorance and a naive character that render him or her susceptible to many interested manipulations.
never thought I'd see the day lord varys tries to sell me nord VPN
Varys didn't have such a good taste in shirts, though.
Prevents his little birds from listening in to your Internet communications. So it seems.
_Lefttenant!! MY GOD MAN!! It seems we're caught in that shirt's Tractor-Beam ...........Deere John help us!!_
I'm so fucking glad I'm not alone in seeing this.
Hahahhahahaha
Both carriers are incredible feats of engineering and are a compliment to those who designed and built them.
As usual your video is very thorough and informative. Thanks for doing the work.
Indeed i got to see the HMS Queen Elizabeth in person when it came to visit and restock in one of our American ports its a beautiful ship just like the Ford and makes for a worthy ally to Aid in any conflicts to come.
Fred Flintstone Aircraft carriers in general are awesome. I stayed on USS Midway (as a floating museum) on a Boy Scout trip and it was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had.
If you think about it they complement each other nicely. If the Ford cant go somewhere because of its nuclear propulsion then send in a QEC. Oil/Gas is also more suitable for the UK as we have our own supply of both, whereas France uses Nuclear because it doesn't have much Oil and has a large Nuclear Power Program.
I agree!
@@cyborg_v271 The US has some non-nuclear carriers (~6 ish I think) but they call them LHA/Assault ships. They're about 2/3 the size of the HMS QE. The only place they can't go is New Zealand anyway so not a big issue :) Google "USS America LHA"
The UK still fields a formidable Navy to this day. Respect from the USA. You’re a small island nation, but you’ve got a big heart, and a remarkable history, and I think we’ll always be friends.
The UK is not a small nation. Their population is 60+ million inhabitants and they possess the ability to attract clever and active people from all over the world.
The british are not small
But it’s a rather small island. I live smack in the middle of it and to the west, south and east the sea isn’t much more than a hundred miles away! I do really enjoy enjoy this channel, the explanations are very clear and well thought out. We are very proud of our new carriers, which I think specifically answer a British requirement and a British budget, but the US super carriers are simply awesome. Best wishes to all across the pond!
@@kharciv It is, the British isles are could fit in Texas lol. But I know what you mean. Most of the worlds modern history involves Britain at some point
@@bunnygirl95 Texas is huge in area.
The UK is even smaller than New Zealand in territory, so what? I believe if we speak about a nation, we should consider the number of its citizens first.
As a former US Navy Nuclear Engineer, I can say with honesty, the United Kingdom with its specific budget and specific need to maximize its projected Naval firepower, has made a VERY GOOD set of decisions in keeping their 2 carriers conventionally powered, and gone with using the STOVL F-35B version. Trying to build and maintain only 2 nuclear powered ships with complete customized systems and reactor plants would have been a long term cost overrun nightmare. The US Navy has nuclear design commonality with all of its Ford class carriers using the new A1B reactors. They are expensive, but that design commonality with over a dozen ships, helps maintain "some" budget efficiency.
The UK ships are pretty much akin to the same idea of our small Assault carries that carry the US Marine F-35B (only theirs is much bigger). They're much more cost effective, and much more versatile for the UK that needs a quicker response force. The US Navy has by far the most capability in its Super Carriers, but not without cost, and a more time consuming process to place those assets on station. A Super Carrier doesn't just flip a switch and go out for a spin. Everything the UK did in foregoing the EMALS and Nuclear systems makes complete sense.
If you are you who you claim to be, I wanna say thank you. Too many people acting like they know what they are talking about when it comes to nuclear, well, anything.
Nuclear is complicated it's good having someone on who knows what they're talking about
Ok, but why does it look like it is made by a kid with just 12 legos?
I agree the Brits have two potent lethal ships that serve their national needs. The UK and the US have two different Navies, tho compatible and very much working together, the UK has a different view of naval power....the US does not define Naval power, it simply defines naval power based on it's own national objective, to protect their own interest. Same with the Brits. I just pity the nations that have to wake up to these HMS carriers in their harbor.
MM EM ET? Officer?
I had to comment on the clip with the carrier in high seas at around 6:00... That's the USS Kitty Hawk (ironically a conventional carrier). I should know as I was serving aboard her during that storm!
Took quite a bit of damage (bent catwalks, lost life rafts, that helicopter by the bow was utterly drenched in saltwater and needed substantial repairs, and an aircraft tug was lost over the side).
Love the videos! Keep em coming!
Good eyes Shipmate! USS Arkansas Nuke Plankowner here. Both great Ships of the Line. CHEERS
The only issue with British carriers in my opinion is they traded one thing for another. Vtol or stovl makes the ship simpler but the aircraft more complicated. Especially the f35 with its liftfan which will have to prove itself reliable under real combat situations. the Harrier was less capable but simpler.
@@thelovertunisia The Harrier was actually a nightmare of a plane, killing more pilots than pretty much any other semi-modern fighter. The F-35b's use of a lift fan makes it much safer. Despite being unsafe, and despite being a fairly limited fighter, the harrier proved the be very effective in war.
How's that for old and new! I was on the oldest carrier and you on the (or at least one of the) newest subs! You lucky dog. I almost crossrated to torpedomate just to get on a sub!
@@p51mustang24 aircraft from a single CV will usually not get you air superiority so, F-35b can just be used for strategic bombing, recon and let the proper dogfighter aircrafts do that job either from a local airbase or from murican CVs equipped with f-35c's.
I'm glad the USA and UK are allies.
found a wholesome comment
Yes. However, Trump is doing a great job at shattering all the relationships with our Allies!
The UK is glad we are allies too.
Till UK wont find oil in their territory and US finds out about it.
@@superman1081 How do you figure that?? Trump is very PRO-British. He has been a dual-national UK passport holder for many many years!!
"Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion".....Norman Schwarzkopf.
Why are the boulevards in Paris lined with trees? Because the German army likes to march in shade.
@@jshepard152 Why are there leather patches at the knees and elbows of english uniforms ? To better crawl away after having stabbed their friends in the back ...
Did yall hear about the firecracker that went off in the german border warehouse ??? Seems all of the French citizens threw up their hands in surrender when they heard it go off !!!
日常乳法
Norman needs to read a history book.
As an American, I can only feel pride that the only other country to truly have carriers of similar capabilities to ours, is our closest and best ally Great Britain.
Yes China is also building a carrier or two, but I would hardly call them modern or reliable.
Good on you Mates.
The Chinese carrier looks like the British carriers and the russian Kiev had a baby. I wouldn't under estimate it.
France also has a decent ship
@@nippleflexer3630 The Kiev is a complete bumbaling failure.
@@thetotalwarsmaster not entirely, sure it caught fire, but that doesn't mean it suckz
@@nippleflexer3630 its Old and Clumzy, it spends more time in port being repaired than it does at sea.
I'm an American and I must say that I have always been impressed by the UK's military. They always seem to get more bang for their buck. Plus, I feel like we have each others back, like even if one of us does something stupid or controversial, the other will try to understand and be supportive. In short, I'm proud to have the UK as an ally :)
great video, thank you
peace
🇬🇧♥️🇺🇸
Its these young americans that make us feel disconnected, i respect ur millitary and your country
@Joseph Thompson i meant respect its power and size
@@aayushchalekar8260 nice essay, whens it due?
@@aayushchalekar8260 No, I'm not representing the whole population of the US, I'm simply sharing how I feel about the UK.
peace
Much love to the UK from the USA ❤️. Beautiful carrier.
Send us back the killer of harry dunn and we may actually believe you yanky c**nts
carefulcliffdriver I have no idea what that means. Who is Harry Dunn?
@@joesmith389 English lad - killed by an American bitch driving on the wrong side of the road. Yanky military whisked her off back to us of a to deny justice for the family. Look it up
@@Jennyeq While i think the Americans should turn her over, it's completely unrelated here -_-
American makes wholesome comment about UK, and some idiot with no class ruins it. Seems about right.
USA and UK..allies and friends forever! We make an awesome team. I'm American so of course I am very proud of our navy but I really like the UK's new carriers as well. Both country's carriers are just amazing.
Eh...When will the Brits ever make anything that looks cool? We Yanks excel at that.
@@wolf359survivor2 After seeing all the contenders for a bunch of US military firearms trials I can confirm that the best looking gun always happens to win. If they made a bullpup that looked cool we'd probably be using it
I'm not brits or American but yes both makes great stuff like a son and a father... wait... *they are*
@@britishneko3906 Yep..GB is our parent country for sure.
@@kaylamarie8309 yup... *I guess I am probably also American then*
Instead of saying what I think about the latest carriers, I'm going to say that the Phantoms in those old Royal Navy clips are still good looking airplanes.
The F-4 is arguably the best looking jet fighter to date.
cant beat cats & traps. early warning via chopper is terrible at best. lethal at worst (ask the crew of the atlantic conveyer). the idea now that the carriers are going to be multi purpose transports and evac ships is a joke. what was the fudge.. $400m to change to catapults for the RN when the actual figure was $12m... just to make sure that the f35b program stayed alive. we sold HMS ocean, the flagship chopper carrier to the Brazilians for £80m after a £70m refit. Should have just fielded the pitiful number of 12 f35 jets on that. dont get me wrong the new RN beasts are incredible but hobbled by politics from the word go. wrong aircraft, no cats & traps, no nuclear power. no savings. no point. still at least the RAF got to take over control of the FAA eh?
@@MrSimythe Glad you added "arguably" - I agree F-4s sure are pretty, but the F-14 Tomcat always caught my eye too! Both gorgeous & deadly birds.
@keith moore I worry about that myself Mate.
@keith moore even if its not as good as its made out to be, it is a better short take of and vertical landing aircraft than the harrier 2B.
Which turns the US standing 10 super carriers in 29 carriers. In total.
As now every LHD and LHA in the navy becomes a carrier.
And that is the future of carriers, supercarriers are bad in todays modern day land based missles.
Smaller faster carriers are better for the future.
They can get on station faster, and wont lose as meny people if you lose a single carrier.
A LHD and LHA as a population of just under 2000 people, a modern super carrier has close to 5000 and the new ford class is 6000 people. Thats a small town if one carrier goes down.
Good video. As an ex US sailor, it seems the Brits made a good decision here, on the more limited budget. The carriers should be hignly effective in this next century.
Our boats being deployed there in the cold war era UK, we always enjoyed our British mates!!
Navy is obsolete now, there should be no navy, its like an excuse to siphon money from real hard working people, the airforce can do what the navy does just as good, deliver troops, airstrikes qnd the lot, due to refueling in mid air, the US is using our money for trash, give it back
@@crashnburn6654 Funny... I think the same about the Air Force. The Navy has planes, & no need for land missile sites... we have submarines for that!😋
+Daniel Dietsche
Britain now has an economic liberal as a PM that will mean massive economic growth over the next decade.
I doubt we are going to see British battle groups formed similar to the US model which will make the British Navy even more powerful.
It will be interesting to see if Britain resurrects more Vulcan aircraft type projects to add to this effect.
The only vessels that are classed as boats in the navy are submarines!
@@tsu8003 Wow, you guessed right... I was on a submarine.
Proud to have you Brits as our allies! We know we always have each others backs, thru thick or thin.
We do, and there is an unbreakable bond between us ....but I always feel that the delay in entering both world wars was, the American governments, (not the american people's) way of severely weakening their best ally for the future. Always strikes me as a shameful and strange decision. But what is done is done
We are also the only nation who paid back all their debts for lend lease etc think we finally did it 10 years ago.
@@p__7000 Sadly, very true. We delayed entering WWII far too long. We had isolationist tendencies back then. Thank God you were able to hold on as long as you did. If we had committed sooner, Britian might have emerged from the war stronger, and a stronger Britain is better for western democracy, including the US. Take care!
@@p__7000 This is true, and we should have entered right away. But then, we were probably still a little pissed about you guys burning the White House. But hey, I've had friends start fires at my house , time heals all wounds.We're good with each other now.
@@teaser452 yes but burning a white house, a building, during a war is slightly different..it hardly amounts to the increased deaths of millions of good men and women because you didn't help out your only ally until almost too late. One month later Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and youd have been toast. Once again very shameful and strange decision. But gold can blind..
The QEC's are wonderful! Y'all have done yourselves proud!
"Y'all" - are you from Texas? No I did not think so. So stop texting in a Texas fashion.
@@indivestor I'm from Missouri. Y'all is not Texan. I picked it up when I was stationed in Virginia. But if I lived all my life in the Bronx and wanted to say 'y'all', I'm saying 'y'all'. Get a life. At least rent one for the weekend.
@@indivestor I'm English and I use Y'all, deal with it.
NordVPN: "Much more difficult for hackers to..." yeah, about that...
Well he has to pay the bills like everyone else, so... 😂
Ah, now I understand why there were so many dislikes
@@Welcome-t1u well you might get money at first but if you recommend a bad company, at the long run, you lose credibility along with them :-\
It was much more difficult. Hackers absolutely did not hack Nord's encryption. They hacked the insecure server that nord rented. Big difference. Data centers that leave remote access on servers are asking for it.
@Max Paine Still their problem when they use insecure 3rd-party servers.
2:29 to skip the ad
NORD VPN was hacked a couple of days ago, so much for security.
@@brianlusiola It was actually hacked for months last year, it's JUST coming out though.
@@Sporora thanks for the accurate correction.
@@brianlusiola Not really, it's still safe to use.
dick
Lord Varys, you da man
lamo i cant stop laughing 😂😂
Lol, that's all I see when curious droid pops up in my notifications.
I overhauled USS Nimitz at Newport News Shipbuilding in 1983-84 after graduating from the United States Merchant Marine Academy. This is an interesting perspective. I am sharing this video with a career nuclear engineer from the shipyard.
Glad that both the US and the UK have such new and powerful ships. It is a dangerous world, it is good to have allies that are also powerful.
It is not dangerous. There are just morons like Trump and Johnson. The new Hitlers
@@Mr.SpocksBrain Trump and Johnson are idiots but hardly "the next Hitlers". Trump is corrupt and stupid but he doesnt have the kind of control needed to start a world war on his own initative and while Hitler was evil and made some stupid decisions toward the end of the war he was still a fairly effective leader. When he got into politics Germany was fractured, broke, and heavily divided poltically and he was able to rebuild them into a mostly united country with a massive economy and military. Trump has mostly just farted around the white house making stupid comments and spending recklessly and Johnson hasnt done much of anything besides fall ass first into office. Hitler built up his own private army, started a race war, and carried out covert actions sparking global war largely using his own private military within the German state while Trump can barely keep a single person in a position of power for more than a few months. Hitler executed 12 million of his own citizens, Trump said mean things on TV and Twitter. Hitler was one of the main causes of the bloodiest war in human history, Trump and Johnson mostly just jerk themselves off while blaming all their problems on other people while getting little to nothing accomplished. The worst you can accuse Trump and Johnson of is criminal corruption and incompetence.
Arthas Menethil you are definitely right on that. But don’t get me wrong, there are some parallels no one will ever see again
Sasuke Uchiha lol just cause you don’t agree with someone’s ideology doesn’t mean they are Hitler
@@Mr.SpocksBrain clearly you haven't heard about Chinese aggression recently plus I don't see any concentration camps in the UK
Finally an militairy video with an ACTUAL human. ME LIKE!
Interesting video :D
Are you sure though?
You should check out Drachinifel, he’s started doing normal voices.
Also check out Matsimus
Mark Felton.
The History Guy has a lot of good military videos (though not exclusively military)
As the father of a soon to graduate Mechanical Engineer who has joined the US Navy to be the Nuclear Officer on a fast attack sub, (and after a bunch more schooling on the Navy's dime) I was quite pleased to hear about the safety record of the US nuclear fleet. One of the reason the US Navy has more trained nuclear engineers in its ranks is because of programs like what my son will be going into. It was a long and interesting interview and testing process for him to get into the program, but in the end, he found a new and very interesting career and he gets to serve in the US Navy. Something we are very proud of!
i wish your son all the best in his career....my son is a maritime engineer on the hms prince of wales ...we are proud of them all and our allies in the us
Tell him we say good luck
@ Chas Gordon Many thanks for your son's service! 🇺🇸❤️
Of course you are right to be proud of your son and US nuclear powered carriers. However the US is a bit of a special case with regards to the navy because of its huge budget and also because many smaller nations even western ones cannot afford these huge expenses. By the way nuclear power for a submarine is hugely advantageous but for a carrier not really because of the need for aviation fuel for the jets which makes pit stops necessary anyway.
I have to vouch for the level of training nuclear submariners receive. That said, military nuclear power is amazing due to the intense power density their NSSS can harness. The British Carriers would have been able to harness one of Rolls Royce cores on their boats. The UK has a strong nuclear industry and experienced supply chain which nobody knows about; Wood, Fraser Nash, Rolls Royce - they would all be able to assist in applying and transferring the current design onto QE class, but would be too much faff and red tape.
As an ex-nuke (USN), I am impressed with Britain's new carriers. Thanks for the info!
QEC can carry up to 72 jets max despite being bit smaller than Ford which carries 75+. QEC also just needs 600 crew to run the ship due to automation and not thousands and has better crew amenities fit for 21st century sailors that demand more comfort.
It has the longest runway out of any carrier too, and its jets can land in a conventional way too with SRVL ( Shipborne Roll Vertical Landing ) pioneered technique by the Royal Navy which US Marines boarding soon QE look forward trying as it allows fuel not to be dumped and give more range and weight capacity to the F35B
The ship can converted to catobar once Tempest Britains 6th generation jet is ready if needed along with Taranis stealth drone
@@theancientsancients1769 QEC can carry approx 48 jets max but we probably won't put more than 12 on it most of the time. I suspect over its lifetime of 30-40 years it might have 36 jets on it on maybe 3 or 4 occasions during major crises, assuming no major wars occur of course! There just isn't any reason to tie up such a large percentage of our F35s on a ship. Ford is a better pure carrier but we would need to buy 5 for it to make any sense and we just don't have a need or funding for so many carriers with our current foreign policy.
lol
As an ex-nuke (USN), I can't say I am impressed but I can say the British will have a lot less stressed out sailors by going conventional.
I was a US Navy Nuclear reactor operator, but I agree that this was a good choice for Britain.
@T R
Two reasons - the fuel load for a carrier is huge, AND takes up a lot of volume in the hull that can be better used for jet fuel, ammo, spare parts and equipment, etc. It also greatly reduces the need for oilers. On many deployments we don't need them at all - for example, in the Persian Gulf a carrier can stay on station for months, while other ships of the task force rotate out to refuel at friendly ports nearby. They still may need jet fuel during such a long deployment depending upon operation tempo - but they carry enough fuel for about 1,000 sorties, and in many areas that can if needed be extended by having the jets land for fuel at an airbase before returning, or more commonly, using in flight refueling from land based tankers so that they don't arrive with dry tanks and need little fuel from the 3 million gallon stores aboard.
Also, in the long run refueling a carrier with conventional fuel is more costly. There is one further advantage on a modern carrier - especially the newest ones - massive electrical power generation capability. With their reliance on modern electronics and the switch to electromagnetic catapults rather than steam that is increasingly important.
I think the biggest advantage is having two carriers for less money. Don't get me wrong the benefit to wider society through the technological development that is required to produce the nuclear ships must be huge. But simply from a strategic point of view, having twice the number of carriers for the same budget makes more sense. Could you imagine the US navy having twice the carriers in it's fleet that it currently sails?
@@Stuffandstuff974
Except that these cost about 75% of the cost of a Ford class supercarrier and are not as capable. They are excellent ships to be sure, but your contention of a 2 to 1 ratio is just out of line. But thanks to the F-35, the Queen Elizabeth class can be a very potent weapon.
Having 25% more less capable carriers is not necessarily a good choice.
@@pdoylemi it states in the video two QE ships can be purchased for the price of one Ford, plus change.
@@Stuffandstuff974
The video is wrong then. A US carrier costs a bit over $12 billion, this cost well over 6 billion pounds - so well over $8 billion. Maybe the producers just looked at the numbers and forgot about the value of the currency.
But a US carrier can carry a few more fighters than the QE, along with important aircraft such as the Naval variant of the AWACS that the QE cannot launch or recover. US carriers have even landed and launched C-130s - though I doubt this is something one would do regularly.
They have another advantage that to my knowledge has not been needed or used yet, which is switching task forces. By that, I mean something like an exercise run in the early eighties. The Nimitz went through the Suez with her task force and headed for the Pacific at high speed - too fast for the support ships. When her escorts were running out of fuel, they were near the Philippines, and took on a new task force to escort them without slowing down. Admittedly, if we did not have large naval bases all over the world, that capability would mean nothing - but we do.
There is also the concept of the submarine/carrier task force. It has its drawbacks, but fast attack subs can go as far and fast as a carrier. They are not good for air or missile defense, but send them fr enough downrange in a war situation and they can kill most anything that might be planning to attack the carrier - in theory, allowing them to operate with near impunity as long as they have fuel for the jets, and food for the crew.
Typical American Engineer:
Eh, can we fit a nuclear reactor in this thing?
Just wait till we have nuclear powered planes that never have to land.
@@aggie427 just open your checkbook George
@@SpecialEDy Nah my money only goes to destroying this country not protecting it hahaha
@@aggie427 The US air force and NASA tested that, deemed the exhaust as radioactive fallout.
Incite The Millennium - They tried. Couldn’t get the reactor to be small enough while also having proper shielding for the pilot. The 2 reactors they made are actually sitting outside the world’s very first nuclear reactor site. It’s a museum now.
Love how the plane at the end is just hovering beside the ship
Thats how vertical landing planes land on a carrier. They come up beside the ship and side slip over the deck in order to minimize the effect of jet wash
Needs more advertisements from a security company that’s bad at security.
2 minutes before video actually starts is excessive. I don't think he's being harsh at all
@Lovecraft
Reality is harsh.
@Lovecraft
That's a stronger argument.
2:29 ad skip, video start
The U.K. government should order a third and call it the Ark Royal......
Adetv1616 we have to get our brexit done first
We don't have enough fleet ships, aircraft or crew to support two in operation, so why would we build a third? The Prince of Wales should have been called the Ark Royal... even Prince Charles has said he's fine with the idea of changing the name.
We have an ark royal
HMS Ark Royal RO7 was sold to Turkey as scrap in 2012....Is there another Ark Royal you are referring to?
What about Illustrious or Formidable? Those were beautiful aircraft carriers during WWII as well smh they named an aircraft carrier with the same name as one of the famed battleships of WWII but didnt even consider HMS Hood....
I'm putting a fusion reactor in my Fiat wish me luck boys.
Couldn't find a Robin? Or not the heavy springs for cobtrol rods to deal with rolling...
yeah, tell us how it goes )
Those reactors require a lot of maintenaince. You'll likely have to Fix It Again, Tony.
I hope your going with the Mr Fusion brand...it’s fueled off table scraps and water:-)
Once you do that, you can sell the technology for a fusion reactor to any nation for *big* money
@curiousdroid Nimitz class aircraft carriers use A4W reactors, and the USS Enterprise used A2W reactors. Other than that slight error, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. I served on CVN 76 for two years in the aft reactor plant so I'm very familiar with the benefits of using nuclear propulsion.
Nuke here too, I also wanted to comment that it's an A4W plant XD
So you approve of destroying the planet if there is a meltdown.
Coal is where it's at.
Gerg C guess you didn’t watch the video 🤣. He clearly stated the US Navy’s record of melting down reactors. Get a dictionary and do some research before claiming about coal power for foundational grid loads and sea ships.
@@jbc5877
Lol. ✈✈✈✈✈
Career highpoint for me, working on the QEC project. Proud to have been part of her gestation.
That would something I would have loved to do. How is it stabilized in roll with such a large deck?
I’m a know-nothing about this stuff but found this exploration of nuke vs. oil fueled war ships to be thorough, well organized, and persuasive. Thanks for the effort.
John Richards you do know that nukes and Nuclear power are Completely different.
I worked on the HMS Prince of Wales, it's massive the first week I was in it I got lost a few times lol
Its a toy compared to the gerald r ford carrier
@@PS3Goat94
No one:
Americans: USA USA USA
Ugh why can’t everyone get along. FOR ONCE.
PS3Goat93, just chill dude. Our militaries are BOTH very capable and professional and that’s that.
@ALSO-RAN ! No one cares
@ALSO-RAN ! learn the difference between salty and finding someone tedious
If they run out of fuel they can get electricity from a nuclear sub via an extension chord, problem solved.
If the batteries die u can jump start it
You need steam for propulsion.
That's retarded
@@appa609 Am I missing something because these ships use electronic propulsion. I think it was 4x30MW GE induction motors.
Oh you're right. I was thinking about the Enterprise.
Tons of factors I'd never thought of - Fascinating!
Thought for sure the Brits would refer to the ski jump deck as “Eddie the Eagle”.
@Anglus Patria
Oh you're a youngster!😜
@Anglus Patria a ski jumper that held the record in the uk back in the 80's
@Anglus Patria Eddie was a complete amateur who decided that England didn't have an Olympic ski jump team, so he would do it. He'd never done it before. He was heralded by everyone but the British Gov't, who made him withdraw from the competition. That's when I knew Britain was in serious trouble, and their response to the take-over of their nation by Sharia Law has born that out.
Anglus Patria A National Legend 🇬🇧
@@kevinbendall9119 love how you have went from eddie the eagle to sharia law, brilliant. think that particular bit of propaganda has ran its course now though, we`re all about the brexit conspiracies these days.
Nuclear, non nuclear , you still have to feed the sailors and fuel the jets ...
Jesus you’re an idiot 😂😂😂😂
@@vince92664 He's right though...
@Randy Bobandy But it still doesn't matter in the end, as fossil fuel is easier and safer to handle quickly, whereas refueling a reactor takes almost a whole day to do safely. As long as the ship does it's job, who really cares (except environmentalists)?
@@specialopsdave wtf? it takes longer then a day to refuel a naval reactor... that is why they last for 25 years! technically, they could last longer. the amount of money saved from building a reactor that lasts this long vs the fuel used for the same missions on a conventional carrier... lets just say you can buy 7 more reactors for the same amount of money in fuel. as for fossil fuels... tell me how many times a naval ship had a reactor meltdown ever, and how many times in the past 4 months a conventional ship had a fire that was fueled by the fuel... then tell me again how 'fossil fuels' are safer....Idiots....
@@FNLastname I never said that. Classic naval reactors have 1 year fuel supplies, and petroleum ones have 1 month supplies. I never said nuclear was worse. It's just that, if you watched the video, you'd realize it makes little sense for England because of initial+maintenance costs. Obviously nuclear is the superior source (and yes, far, far safer: I've known this for years), but -the initial cost required to achieve this- -safety isn't worth it if you rebuild them- -every 8 years like Britain does.- For the US who needs to be able to haul ass across the whole Pacific, petroleum would be drop-dead stupid. But for Britain who keeps the ships docked 99% of the time, a reactor sitting offline that often is much more expensive in the end, especially when the US can just send their ships to help Britain with any long range missions.
I said safer to handle *quickly*. Nuclear is safer but much slower to fuel, and you don't leave offline reactors fueled, so Britain couldn't respond quickly. The US however, leaves their ships running and only refuels when depleted, not because their fuel was removed for long-term docking.
So the main 2 reasons are 1)Budget and 2)Infrastructure.
Yep, they were very clever on this. They fully used the possibility offered by the F-35B
When you have to military on a budget. Though, the lengths Britain went through to just land a single bomb on a runway in the Falklands showed a real hole in 1970's-1980's military planning.
@@fakshen1973 Yea if the argies had waited just a little longer those tiny carriers would have been decommissioned and they wouldn't have had anything at all. That war was won by the skin of their teeth.
These days the uk military wastes its budget on things like women, had to pay out 100k when they were injured marching along side men alone, because you know, its unfair that men are taller.
Kashatnic K couldn’t they technically operate on the ocean carrier as well?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech yes but choosed the most expensive fighter jet in the world that still has problems and in some years GB will be behind U.S china and maybe russia in the naval power and agility so IMO if you lack the infrastructure just focus on building one.
Budget is another thing but still they choosed f35 so
When I went through training to operate reactors in the navy, the first thing we had told to us was no accidents were allowed
Mmm.. that's a good deterrent to stop accidents right there. Top training.
At the first indication that someone can't handle it, they are removed from the program. It had a 60% drop rate when I went through. You didn't even see a real reactor until you had nearly a year of training.
Like how in the Marines they tell you that you are not allowed to be killed
They don't shut the entire program down if a marine dies. One accident and Congress has promised to defund the entire nuclear fleet.
I hear Russia teaches the same but adds the word published. 😂
As an American I love the American Super Carriers, but the new British design is a beautiful ship, and if it gets the job done, for cheaper, that's a win, win for the Royal Navy.
Awesome video! Being a US Navy Aegis Sailor I very much enjoyed this video. Thank you!
40rty I visited the American carrier G W Bush when it came into port in Portsmouth last year. Such a cool visit and loved how it felt like a working ship below flight deck.
I enjoyed it as well, I'm an Englishman who was wondering why we got rid of our flag carriers and sea harrier fleet before actually having a replacement. A little bit shortsighted given the prime minister signed the Armed Forces Covenant and then it took another decade for QE to put to sea.
@@satyris410
Politics and bureaucracy.
Both carriers have their pros and cons but nuclear is King however given the UK already had the support craft set up for a non-nuclear carrier and doesn't have the budget they probably made the right decision
Plus the lessons learnt from previous wars, smaller is sometimes better and the fact the aircraft we use don't require as much landing space. Plus we are extremely small group of islands compared to the US lol 😂
Couldn't agree more. Was an obvious choice by the UK. Droid does a fabulous job explaining the differences in capability (behind the scenes like decommissioning et. al.) between the UK & US and demonstrates the case for non-nuclear in understandable terms.
@@LongdownConker
When Boris grows the UK economy we may see more capabilities added such as nuclear carriers and so on.
UK has the know how it just needs the economic drive and government to carry it out. More anti aircraft ships are needed in the UK capacity.
@@LongdownConker
UK has a much larger global footprint that people realize. The UK needs more than those two carriers but they could be a good foundation for better capacity.
The UK next needs to build battle groups around those carriers so that they are capable of service in full scale global warfare. If this was the case the UK could become second to the US in global naval warfare with the likes of China and Russia being left far behind.
@@bighands69 "wen Boris grows the UK economy" is a party big assumption. No prime minister is ever guaranteed to grow the economy, much less in these uncertain times of Brexit. I don't think the UK needs nuclear carriers anyway. For one thing the carriers are ecomponied by an aunturage of ships anyway so its not issue to have a fuel vessel there. Then there is the fact that we use the F-35b, which does not need nearly as much landing space, therefore the ships don't need to be as big so don't need as big of a power source. Then there is the fact that in previous wars the UK has found that the bigger nuclear powered ships aren't as effective in rough seas. We have ships to suit our needs and to compliment our allies not compete with them
2:27 Heres the button to skip the Nord "we covered up being hacked" VPN ad.
It always shocks me people trust security companies like Nord VPN after they not only get hacked but then dont really do much to fix the issue, and then lie about it and dont tell people about it. The very least they could do, the bare bones minimum, is tell their customers "oh hey, we got hacked, you might want to change some passwords".
This is a good comparison between the two and very interesting and well researched.
Cheers for an interesting video.
As always, your presentation was well reasoned,even-handed, and packed with highly informative content. Your research is extremely high quality. I look forward to all of your content. You tube has some great researchers : you, Scott Manley, The Everyday Astronaut, Marcus House.What a fascinating time we live in! Keep up the good work. :)
PoW: *killed by Air attacks*
Also PoW: *Reborn as Carrier to counter air attacks*
A very smart choice for carrier type for the needs of the U.K.
All things considered, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want 2 for the price of 1... goes without saying the nuclear reactor lobby in the US made a few senators some hefty "donations"!
@@paulcarey1708 Nuclear carriers are good choice but you need 5+ before it starts to be economical. The US has 10 or 11 nuclear carriers so the numbers work out. They DO have non-nuclear smaller carriers called assault ships (LHA) too. Google "USS America LHA"
@@brazeiar9672 for the USA its not about economics. its about the differences it has to be the game changer in a hot war..the range it has the speed across the ocean.. the ability to stay at war much longer then the opponent and the size also allows many more jets plus the catapult allows a full ordinance of wepons to be carried during takeoff..the start of any war can be the difference in an outcome..so the nuclear and catapult and size allows the game changes needed to win.
The U.K. carriers,are the best soloution, when you don’t have the mega budget, of the U.S. I cannot see any downsides. Also, they look great,with the twin Islands design. Thank you for great videos.
Great video. Love the QEC carriers, as I think they fit what the UK needs brilliantly--the UK is always pragmatic and these carriers are no exception; they're well designed, capable, and fit what the Brits need. The USN has a different mission, and therefore needs different carriers. My husband served on 6 different carriers (Enterprise, Nimitz, America, Lexington, Carl Vinson, and Kittyhawk) during his 20-year career with the USN, so I have the utmost respect for USN Carriers and the projection of power. As always, glad the UK and commonwealth nations are our closest allies.
Both the US carrier and the New English carriers are magnificent! :D
UK carriers. England is one part of the United Kingdom.
@@ptonpc the point is clear enough. Go gurgle some tea.
US carrier? We have 7 carrier fleets and 10 Nimitz class supercarriers.
@@sfall616 They were built in Scotland. No it wasn't.
@@@sfall616 who is clearly a Russian trying to pretend to be American. Why so aggressive? he was merely being accurate. I'm tired of these Russians trying to hurt the relationship between the Brits and our brothers in arms!
Guy kinda looks like lord Varys off game of thrones lol
Yep. Varys makes the best pop-sci and pop-tech videos.
Everyone in the know knows that!
I haven't found Tyrion's channel yet, but I'm looking...
haha i don't even watch it and I have to agree hahaha
His little birds tell him everything...about science-y stuff
Got em! 😂
He reminds me of Uncle Fester from the Addam's Family (the original)
Video starts here: 2:28, thank me later.
Needs to be higher, 2 min shills is taking the piss
I’ll thank you later
ok tell me when to
Thank you!
Aye mate, too latr
Non nuclear ships big drawback (especially during war):
“Hey bad guys hang on I’ve gotta get gas”
Oh dose the USA also use nuclear aircraft and crew
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 : Yeah all our Aircraft Carriers are nuclear powered
@@limabravo6065 but that doesn't matter if you have too resupply food and jet fuel
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / clearly you’ve never been on one these ships so let me enlighten you. With multiple nuclear reactors providing power to the ship they can hold enough jet fuel to fly for much longer than most conflicts last, and food is the same deal. And with food if need be it can be delivered (air dropped, or ship delivered) while the ship is in an AO. And the aircraft can be refueled in the air almost indefinitely
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / nuclear crew? Nuclear aircraft were considered back in the day, engines and aircraft were built but they scrapped it due to expense and the potential for radioactive contamination
4:33 also the third Yamato-class was converted into a aircraft carrier
I thought the Yamato was converted into a Space Battleship....
Well, "Converted" but at the time it was barely the bottom section of the hull
And sunk on it’s first mission by the USS Archerfish.
HMS M2 was a British sub that was converted into a submarine-aircraft-carrier
@@jcoronet2000 Now that did surprise me. Nice find
2:29 to skip the advert.
Nord VPN was hacked and is no longer a viable security option
VPNs are mostly used to view pornography.
@@thomasesthomas1996 lmao
SKIP AD >>>>>
2:29 2:29 2:29
Never paused to consider that US carriers may have unlimited range, yet none of their escorting ships do, rendering that range functionally a total wash.
Very good point/thought there.
That footage of the fighter landing like a helicopter on that carrier's gotta one of the dopest things I've ever seen!🤩👍
@mPky1 Which is why royal navy is opting for rolling vertical landing instead of direct vertical landing.
@mPky1 Unless you want more aircraft on the same size aircraft carrier, or to deploy said jets somewhere where standard planes couldn't operate or maybe you just want to be able to land your fighter on....oh I don't know a random Spanish cargo ship you spotted. :D
@mPky1I didn't miss it, it was already mentioned and not something I would argue against, seems a reasonable statement. As for no point having more aircraft with lighter weapon loads, how do you feel about seats in cars? no point in cars because buses exist? I'm sure you will concede that that's a silly argument, the same logic can be extended to more aircraft. Situational? true but so much is, take nuclear vs traditional power plants for aircraft carriers both have their merits depending how they are intended to be used. (edit for passing thought, I kinda want to watch formula one bus racing now :)
@mPky1 The point I obviously failed to make is they are different vehicles with different uses, claiming VTOL jets are the same as traditional is equally erroneous. I thought the more cars analogy would also highlight the ability to go more places at the same time compared to one bus. Another point would be what happens if the bus gets blown up by anti bus missile, taking it's formidable seating capabilities out of the equation, perhaps in this situation it would be better to have more vehicles at your disposal albeit with fewer seats on each vehicle. Remember I am not the one arguing that one approach is better than the other, just that both approaches have their merits situationally.
@mPky1 Ok you are entitled to your opinion, ofc the fact that actual armed forces use VTOL leads me to believe that the professionals probably understand the situation a lot better than you. I can easily understand some of the reasons behind their use and have explained them to you in the simpliest way I know how. The fact you still don't get it imo says more about you than I. Prehaps watch some interviews with actual pilots and prehaps it will sink in. Nice chatting, if a little frustrating.
Sponsored by NordVPN
Well, this is awkward
Yeah, I use VPN to ...ahem... PROTECT myself from hackers. Certainly not to do some nasty things on the internet... No, no, no, sireee... Not me.
69 likes....
@@erikziak1249 Yeah bro we believe you no need to explain
why>?
man needs to bring money home, don't be so mean
the british navy also has an ace in the hole that allows them to keep a smaller carrier force more suited to a falklands war event and that is, if the doo doo gets serious and plenty deep, the british know that most likely some of those giant american aircraft carriers will show up on scene to join the fight.
The Yanks never showed up before and were batting for the Argies. And you trust Trump or his successors?
Btw those 'giant' carriers are only 150 feet longer in the bow..
@@1chish you mean youre so fucked in the head you never heard of WW2 or WW1 and no america wasnt helping argentina, we gave the british shrike missiles
Sweet aircraft carrier guys... but, how is that going to help me when I get scooter-mugged in London?
Well they could launch an F35 and do a precise bombing strike. I think it would be worth it
@Toefingers you could decide where you want to go. His front tire, back tire, face ect
@@lordbucketheadpolling5824 yeah sure thing how about his balls to stop him breeding
You need a faster scooter. Ever consider a bicycle ?
a carrier would be about as relevant to your predicament as your comment is relevant to this video.
I bought my Yugo because it was cheaper than the Mercedes and I can work on it myself.
Hmmmm. A solution?
Yes but you never talked about the range for a fully fueled diesel-electric carrier.
Tiny
@Frank Green Likely that's at best cruising speed... thing is, carriers doing flight ops spend a lot more time at top speed than typical Navy ships, so their effective range is likely to be a lot less. Nuke carriers, of course, don't need to worry about range - they can go for two decades or more between core replacements.
@Frank Green So 5000 miles operational radius as you need to come back and zero days in the area you intent to operate in. How many oilers does it take to keep it operating per week?
@Frank Green your right
About the same as the rest of the carrier group. So absolutely no difference from a nuclear carrier during operations.
Basically these ships never go anywhere without a massive flotilla so nuclear power, while great, is actually no real bonus because the fleet that protects it still needs fuel ... also the planes need fuel too.. so it never gets severed from it's need for refueling anyway
Starts at 2:30
LOL 2.5 minutes out of 16! reason enough for a thumbs down.
I worked with a guy who was navy in the Falklands, maintenance on a type 42, he said the prob with nuclear is that its ultimately steam plant and the steam is highly corrosive, so maintenance costs are high, nuclear makes sense in an all out war where you need ships quickly that do not need refueling and don't expect them to last long, but for long life span ships in peacetime maintenance costs are a lot less on non nuclear ships
Makes perfect sense to me - more bang per pound sterling.
@Modustollens1 We have massive resources. No need for bigger. The technology is all that matters.
@Modustollens1 I watched it all. I stand by what I said. Case closed. Now go and lie down.
@Tom Ryan We are not European/a European nation and we will never be European. The NHS is English/British.
@James Watson Atheist Gamer. Maybe you should stick with making Minecraft videos and leave the adult topics to the adults.
@Tom Ryan You are not ready to discuss this with that kind of view. Tell me the reason 1) why Nuclear powered is a must when their forces rarely operates in extteme range, 2) Why catapult when they dont have naval fighters that the catapult is a must.
"The Advanced Arresting Gear has been given a green light to recover all propeller and jet aircraft, to include the C-2A Greyhound, E-2C Hawkeye and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and E/A-18G Growler, (except for its new stealth fighter) the Navy said." The catapults work well with heavily loaded planes. (Bombs, fuel, rockets, etc.) In the Pacific ocean, keeping unfriendly planes at a distance from the aircraft carrier sometimes requires a large fuel load. Having said that, I admire the new British Carriers.
One of the biggest advantages of nuclear over conventional is the available tankage for aviation fuel vs ship propulsion fuel.
Not quite true. The crewing alone of the Ford is 4,500 with all the hotel, messing and other spaces needed for such a big crew. The QE needs just 1,600. The nuclear power plant and associated steam and water systems take up way more space than the MT30s (that sit in sponsons under the two islands) or the Wartsilla diesels in the bottom of the ship. Where do you think the extra 30,000 tons of displacement comes from? the two ships are within a 150 feet in length the same size.
1chish understood, however that was one of the biggest reasons the US Navy decided to get away from conventional powered carriers, you have to remember the US has roughly 3 times the number of aircraft on one of their Carriers. Far more “capable” then the British. Don’t get me wrong, I have mad respect for the British Carriers as well as their Navy. Cheers!
@@eyebok Thanks for the respect but you need to re-appraise the numbers. A QE will embark some 24 F-35s as well as Merlins in peacetime exercises. However it can also supply other air assets as needed. A completely different air capability would be needed for large scale disaster relief for example. The RN has published deck plans showing it can park 45 F-35s on deck and still carry out flying sorties. It can house a further 30 in the hangar space. A Nimitz will embark some 60 / 70 all the time as the US Navy cram the decks while the RN never has. Even the Skipper of QE was on record as saying '60+ aircraft'.
So its not '3 times' and the aircraft once airborne are as capable as anything the US Navy has and possibly more versatile. Its just a different (and far cheaper) way of doing the same job.
I like the old Enterprise with 8 reactors........what a badass carrier!
@Opecuted the eighth
2x Bridges-
Like a Venator.
Palpatine would be proud.
Venator-class Star Destroyer :)
The sexiest ship fiction or not
And the reason is the same too. One bridge for ATC and one for controlling the ship.
Twice the bridges, double the effectiveness...
@@trChrisJames I was just making a reference, nothing serious. Others will understand.
Love these new British carriers, absolutely awesome!!!
Canada and Australia should get one each
If we ran 4 with mixed crews we could probably keep 3 at sea
The Debate with rules, really!
Plugs, Beelzebub Joe Biden's crime FAMILY is off limits in any debate, in Russia/China GATE!! Perhaps November 3RD. 2020 will convince The People of the United States, that Criminals votes won't be counted by the Nine Justices on The Supreme Court, Vote out all Dummocrats and Republicans In Name only (RINO's) Its time to Register at the Poles , vote at your local Poles take 2 pieces of ID and re-register, do it now not online in person, then make a date with history on November 3 RD. 2020 walk into the Sunlight vote in person, its that important! We weren't able to add your reply. Please try again. FB' sensors , really! 4 more years to drain the swamp on the Patomic DC! General Flynn is a Soldier, taking Slings and Arrows for us Citizens exposing a corrupt judicial system, you can fix this Vote November 3rd 2020!
FB assess CCP Corvid 19 wont stop Trump
Great job in analysis and explanation. Makes me think when it comes to nuclear the issues with decommissioning are often sidelined as a "Future me" problem.
decommissionning of nuclear reactors is a fake problem, a lie spread by greenpeace. look in the US, there already a bunch of nuclear power plants that have been decommissioned and "returned to grass" as they say.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 This is about the cost of decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier as a running cost vs a fossil fuel carrier. Take your rambling elsewhere.
video starts at 2:29 after the scam
nord vpn isn't a scam, but i woudn't expect someone who doesn't suffer from censorship to understand.
King of Diamonds they got hacked and millions of people’s data was leaked but they hid it for a year. sounds sus to me
i'm more talking about the security claims they make in general. but yes that does shine a light on how that industry generally treats security
@@olliewills1227 it seems you have misinterpreted some of the facts. NordVPN leaked their wildcard TLS certificate and didn't let their customers know until it was public knowledge which was 18 months later, there has been no reports on people's leaked data. Your misinformation is easily debunked and it can cause NordVPN to look innocent when they are clearly are not innocent.
Here's a list on this topic:
ruclips.net/video/CBJZFTy_SAc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/G1thc5DSHwA/видео.html
techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was-hacked/
ruclips.net/video/VrME4kn15rQ/видео.html (prior to the hack, abstract but related to NordVPN)
Damn that was a long ass commercial.
At the end of the day..our 2 countries will always defend each other to the last. It’s all good.
As a British person, I have always felt the 'Special Relationship' was a British deceit. Seems the US party in power could give a damn about any foreign relationship
Suez? Northern Ireland?
@@gastonlaberge2119 that jackass is allmost gone thank God we are great again that he is gone
Catapult allows much greater take-off weight for ordnance.
yup, I heard that when you have a ramp on aircraft carrier the plane can only hold half of the payload of a catapult aircraft carrier
Do you two morons think the U.K government and industry spent millions in the 1970's developing a means to reduce aircraft performance? "I heard..." from whom, Soaringtractor or Private Pyle? You will find the ramp assists take-off performance. Every Navy in the world building any size carrier utilises a ramp. Their architects and engineers will have tested and validated the idea separately from the U.K. The U.S likes and understands the 18th century technology with which it is familiar.
PhotoIsca Haha,soaringtracter..what a twat that bellend is..
@@photoisca7386 It doesn't reduce performance, but most certainly limits it. Also, France would disagree, as would many of the people involved in the _Queen Elizabeth_ class' developmental lineage.
@@peterson7082 With catapult/arresting wire you get better takeoff weight, range, no system to thrust the aircraft up/down, variety of aircraft (turboprop, slow, fast), multiple aircraft can ready and takeoff at the same time, safety...
2:30 is when the video starts.
Also, QEC Class Carrier = Queen Elizabeth Class Class Carrier. ;)
Say what you like about the Brits, they have class.
Its like watching a British Uncle Fester
Or, Varis (GoT)
You are beautiful?. Roight!
I enjoyed your presentation. It was informative and easy to understand without adding unnecessary criticism of USA. The two Brit carriers seem like a good fit for our closest ally. Hope they never have to be use in anger.
Steve Broome how could he criticize USA carriers anyways? They’re the most advanced hunk of metal floating in the sea and will be for decades
John Hendrix I was referring to one of the other commenters who said we spent a lot on defense and zero on health care. I wish I had replied directly to his comment. Sorry
You are right that our carriers are the best possible ship on the seas. I am glad that the Brits can make a quality carriers for less money.
Steve Broome no need to apologize I was just making a statement lol. I’m also glad that the British are taking action to rebuild their navy, anything’s better than what France does. (Which is sit back and make other countries fund or fight for you)
Video: Nuclear Vs Non Nuclear Aircraft Carriers
HMS Gotland: How to sink an Aircraft Carrier in 2 steps. Step1, activate invisibility mode, step 2, sink it.
Video starts @ 2:43
Thank me later.
2:29
use sponsorblock
Thanks - and to the other 250 posters who made the same point.
@@alancrabb i have yet to see anyone else comment this.
@@Drakey_Fenix i dont think it works like that.
Let’s be honest here, the biggest reason the UK was able to go with a lesser carrier like this is almost solely owing to two points.
First, it doesn’t seem to be built to operate in a peer state, real war environment. American nuclear carriers are so because war planners envisioned a battle group having to make 30+ knot sprints across the Atlantic to outpace submarines and roving satellites. The ocean is a big place and that sort of “strategic” speed is a carrier’s best defense. This class seems designed more to loiter offshore in the sandbox and drop bombs on camel farmers. The USN literally built nuclear cruisers so that in the event of an attack, they could keep up with the carrier across the length of the entire Atlantic.
Second, the Royal Navy knows that in the event of the aforementioned peer state conflict, this carrier will operate alongside USN groups. That means AEW coverage, COD service, and all the other things that the indigenous UK carrier has no hope of providing itself.
Any carrier is better than no carrier and I’m glad the RN is getting some relevance back, but I wish they’d have just spent the last 25%.
Your criticism of the QEC's capabilities is true, now. But I don't think that aircraft development for the QEC is over with the purchase of the F-35's. The QEC would benefit greatly from a drone AEW aircraft that was much lighter and used less fuel than a manned AEW aircraft. The US Navy is also very interested and involved in developing such UAV's as well. An unmanned, long range cargo service (COD UAV) is much more problematic.
I strongly suspect, without any evidence but history, that protecting the Falkland Islands may be one of several missions that the QEC is designed for.
@@Ferndalien You can simply put sombre troops and some planes on an Island to protect it.
30 knot sprints are useless when you’ve got long range aircraft with cruise missiles or now hypersonic missiles.
The US hasn’t faced a competent enemy since WWII
@@Bartonovich52 It may be the time like in the 30s where battleships were built while they already became outdated.
Just to keep the record straight. The Nimitz class are powered by A4W reactors. I qualified on A1W, A2W, and A4W reactors and no naval engineering type would seriously compare any conventional large ship to a nuke. There are many advantages for the air wing and for the ability to have long high speed runs.
Great video though. Very interesting as are his other. Different perspectives are always important to hear.
Ultimately as the video explains, those advantages just aren't worth it - it's more about explaining that than the comparison. The UK has a $60 billion budget, a ship like that would eat 10% of it without overruns, diesel delivers far better value. Pragmatism and prudence, words the English love, won out, as is made clear in the video.
Maybe the compact reactors of the future will be cheaper and more accessible to small navies (hopefully a compact MSR is in the works or on the horizon at least).
The new reactors for the ford class have a core that designed to last the life of the hull. If/when they need refueling there will be much larger mx concerns at the same time that will probably justify scrapping the ship. Even then, the 'old' reactors in the Nimitz and Las Angeles class submarines are getting 30 years on their original cores, so they've got 15+ years of operation beyond break-even with life left after the re-core.
Did you factor in the cost of the F35B into the carrier, as that's the only plane we could operate after selling all our Harriers to the US Marines for spares.
In short, I think the lack of a catapult launch seemed like a very short sighted cost cutting measure, tying us into buying some of the most expensive planes on the planet.
Far be it for me to suspect the UK Govt sold us out in exchange for some brown envelopes from across the pond, they've never done that before have they... *cough*
Per unit the F-35B isn't actually very expensive, in fact I believe it's now about the same, if not lower than the Typhoon. The big costs were for the initial development of the aircraft.
2:30 to skip the crappy bit...
One critical limitation of ski jumps is the payload capacity of the aircraft, especially the capability of returning with heavy ordinance onboard. You can pretty much land a fully-loaded F-18 or F-35C on a CATOBAR carrier with no issues once some fuel is burned off.
They now have the option for SRVL (Shipborne rolling vertical landing) on the QE class which allows them to bring back much more weight than a vertical landing if they want now, so that isn't as much of an issue anymore.
An interesting fact about the 2 bridges: the English realise that a carrier is a giant floating target and would most likely get hit by missles so they went for a 2nd bridge as redundancy
Makes sense. The newest anti ship missiles can recognise and aim for the bridge
I was wondering about that myself. Thanks! I assumed the forward bridge was for the CO & OOD conning the ship and the after bridge for the Air Boss conning flight ops. Thanks for clearing that up.
yes, I have noticed that element, too. IIRC the second tower also houses a second funnel. Again, for redundancy. I don't recall anyone stating a top speed... any insights to report?
@@jackmack1061 when she was on builders trials, they had to leave the AIS on as she was in civilian hands, she tipped over 32 knots. Prince of Wales has done the same.
Each island houses down and uptakes for the 4 base load diesel generators. The ships also have a Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine generator under each island for boosting their power to 80000 megawatts for the prime movers - 4 electric motors, plus the additional hotel and other power requirements for the ship.
There is a huge dispersal of power supply around the ships which are therefore very hard to take out with one hit. They dont have engine rooms like conventional ships, just lots of smaller generators dotted all over. This makes for much better compartmentalisation. Tough nuts to crack!
@ Science Chap Thanks for the info. And yeah, the value of compartmentalised power generation could be enough to win a war sometime not too far in the future. Interesting times...
15:45 All good until we start talking carrier based AEW&C, tanker, and support aircraft....
"a safety record second to none"
Well, that's because there hasnt been a full on naval clash in all these years since their Ships went Nuclear. One of these ships sinking would be disasterous.
im pretty sure they won't get even a bit close to the fighting on that ship, they just bring planes and take down the enemy ones that get close enough
@@haexrow05 would like to remind you that during war games a Swedish diesel electric sub snuck past a us battle group and 'torperdoed' a us nuclear carrier' you can't always prevent being hit in war
@Roger Dodger all it takes is one sunken nuclear ship to cause absolute chaos to the rest of the world. And before you say anything about the US's scorpian, that (probably) wasn't shot at
@@olivergoad5160 Doesn't work like that in reality. Carriers drive around fast in open ocean, diesel subs can't chase and hunt in open ocean without surfacing to recharge. This is naval tactics 101, the US just wanted to get funding for a torpedo defence system and cooked up this excuse. The real threat is nuclear powered subs operated by China and Russia but that's too close to the truth to talk about!
@@brazeiar9672 There are countless nuclear reactors at the bottom of the oceans of the world, the US has lost two nuclear subs and the Russians around 5. None of them brought on Armageddon.
I feel like carriers are developing the same issue that surface warships developed up to ww2: they keep making them bigger and beefier. I really don't think that's necessary. Less is more.
I wish we had been a little more agressive and went with a MSR reactor, although back when it was on the drawing board almost everyone had forgotten about MSRs, because you don't need a pressure vessel they can be made significantly smaller, refuelling is a breeze if you go with a fast reactor as you can just drain the reactor and fill it up with new fuel, you can even much more easily reprocess the fuel as it's already in a fluid state, as there is no need to melt down the fuel rods then deslove them in a salt, then make new fuel rods out of the fairly radioactive fuel.
With a fast MSR breeder, you just take out the fission products and stick it right back in your reactor, which a few of those fission products are quite useful and valuable, so you can pay for the reprocessing step by selling the fission products; actually making the step cheaper than just putting in fresh fuel. Which I admit fuel is cheap, but the waste is not cheap to deal with which is your real advantage, and in the case the cost of the processes of refuelling would be cheaper.
The decommissioning should technically be easier, although the reactor would still be radioactive, although an order of magnitude less than the fuel and should be safe in about 50 years as long as you build the reactor out of appropriate materiel. If you keep reprocessing the fuel until all the actinides
are burned up, your fuel is safe after 300 years and is actually safer than when you dug it up.
Which you can reliably contain things for 300 years, it's when you are talking about 10k years where a hole host of things could happen in that time, 10k years is literally on geological time scales where geology would have changed.
What about the water solubility of the MSR's fuel. Not sure that you'd want that floating about the sea.
@@Accessless The water solubility of Uranium is a problem in and of it's self. So I don't really see it as much more of an issue.
If you lose containment you are already fucked because in a water cooled solid core reactor you are going to blow that fuel everywhere.
If you lose inter containment in a MSR you don't need a huge outer containment vessel to take that 1000x increase in water's volume when it turns into gas, so you can with that mass just create a stronger, but dimensionally smaller containment vessel.
You could make the containment vessel so strong that as long as you are constantly burning the actinides it would last 300 years on the sea bottom which is long enough for the fission products to decay.
"With a fast MSR breeder, you just take out the fission products and stick it right back in your reactor, "
Etheoma, much much easier said than done. And vastly more cheaply said than done, too.
@@Ferndalien First I would like to point out that the reason reprocessing is as expensive as it is now is because you have to melt down the highly radioactive fuel, and then make it into new fuel rods, with an MSR you skip both these steps which actually constitute most of the steps in reprocessing solid fuel, and therefore most of the cost.
Actually no you put the actinides back in the reactor, you take the fission products out, and they stay out and that is your waste stream.
Sorry that was my bad.
And the point is not that the process is cheap, it is that if in a process you can separate out the valuable fission products your net cost for reprocessing on the whole should be cheaper.
And in one of the proposed Fast MSRs you don't have to reprocess for the first 20 years, as you actually want the fission products to build up to reduce the melting point of the salt.
So there is time to develop cheap methods of reprocessing even if you could install a bunch of these reactors right now.
In the UK, a guy with a ladder coming to fix your sat dish is called a satellite engineer. Everyone who lived and worked here for a few years can figure out the real reason behind the selection of hydrocarbon-based propulsion over a nuclear one (and let's not call it electric here, please...) for the flagship of UK Navy.