HMS Prince of Wales comes home after West Atlantic deployment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 дек 2023
- HMS Prince of Wales made an emotional homecoming to Portsmouth following busy flight trials deployment to the eastern seaboard of the United States. Included 1138 Deck Landings by 13 Aircraft types including 60 F-35 SRVLs
After shaking off the problems that have plagued her entry into service, this successful trip was good preparation for her taking over as the Fleet Flagship and high-readiness carrier at the end of next year.
#hmsprinceofwales
Footage: Royal Navy and PortsmouthProud
Music: PunchDeck - lost in the void
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
Always emotional seeing the sailors reuniting with their loved ones. They do an amazing job
Well done boys and girls, welcome home!
God bless the Royal Navy!
Well done the Jacks. What they did in the USA will make big changes to how our carriers are operated from now on.
Have a great Xmas and a safe 2024.
well done Royal Navy!!
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n Michael Pezzullo you're an Italian teenager, who claimed to be a US War veteran!
You rename your account yet make the same anti-British lies and hate comments
Wonderful video!!!
0:36
0:44
Still cannot afford to put any fighters on it.
How are they ever going to be proficient as an operational carrier. Missiles are changing a lot off dynamics. That said allways proud off the Navy service & what it does for the Country.
Need those type 26 soonest.
We can afford the planes. The problem is that there's a backlog in the production process of F35s. We've slowed down the buying process, as we don't want to be lumbered with a fleet full of early versions of the F35, only to then waste even more time & money upgrading them to latest version once they leave the production line.
We have around 40 F-35 already, with 48 ordered and 72 fully funded. We only embark jets when they're actually needed, not just for joy rides across the Atlantic
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM "We can afford the planes."(sic)
Incorrect. As the CEO of Lockheed Martin UK Paul Livingston reported back in December 2022, the UK is refusing to exercise its options and accept delivery of current production lot F-35Bs due to lack of money. The UK is also refusiing to purchase A400s and E-7s due to lack of money.
@@Orbital_Inclination "and 72 fully funded."(sic)
Incorrect. Despite a lot of posturing by the MoD, no order for any aircraft past the original 48 has been placed. There's been talk of an additional 25 - which includes a replacement for ZM-152 which was lost off the QE during CSG 21 - but nothing signed on the dotted line. The UK also has to pay for the remaining 11 aircraft yet to be delivered.
@@AA-xo9uw : That's not true. The UK government slowed down the buying process because after the initial 'debacle' in the early development stages of the F35. We didn't want to be 'lumbered' with a fleet full of early version F35s, only to then waste even more time & money upgrading them once they leave the production line. Now, also with the backlog in the production process of F35s. In hindsight, it's turned out to be the correct move.
Here's an excerpt from an interview from Ben Wallace. UK's, 'then' Secretary of state for defence.
"Its important for me to say to BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and all the other [ contractors] that ‘It’s in your interest to keep through-life support costs down’ because simply, I don’t want to be held to a massive bill I can’t get out of.
We need more than 48 and we will invest in more than 48, but I’m not in the business of giving a blank check to contractors if they don’t play their part in cost controls, support and indeed making sure Britain’s developed capabilities are put on them [ the F-35], " Wallace told lawmakers.
Welcome back lads & ladies :D
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n Michael Pezzullo you're an Italian teenager, who claimed to be a US War veteran!
You rename your account yet make the same anti-British lies and hate comments
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n good
Just in time for Christmas
0:08
When Labour get in next year will the name of this site revert to Save the Royal Navy again? You changed your name a few years ago and yet the numbers of frigate replacements are STILL not confirmed and the spending is over budget again. Plus, there's fewer F35s that were promised.
Last point first there are fewer F-35s only because the USA is failing to deliver the numbers we ordered and paid for. The second tranche is already funded and that will take totals to 77 x F-35s (plus the one crashed). The 138 figure was always the through life airframe requirement. Nothing has changed there.
The total number of frigates is confirmed and its normal for contracts to be done in tranches or blocks. The Royal Navy's own website shows 8 x T26 Frigates have been ordered (as of October 2023). The steel for Ship Four (HMS Birmingham) was laid down in April this year.
Babcock confirmed that the 5 x T31s are ordered and confirmed. In fact Ship Two's keel was laid down in September this year.
@@1chishthanks for the clarification.
@@1chish: How dare you come out with a well thought out comment full of facts! This is social media. Facts & critical thinking have no place here. You must give unfounded opinions without thought. I'm quite frankly shocked & offended on behalf of people I've never met. I'm reporting you, as I want your name aswell as your life in general, sullied for all time. May God have mercy on your soul. 😉
@@1chishyou guys still aren’t pulling your weight. Without the US, 25% of international waterways would be non passable.
@@LAXERJK are you upset? Try not to unleash your frustrations on the nearest school.
Some of those sailors looked very cold surely they could have worn their coats.
And no tug boat. Ruzzia take note.
Erm there’s always tugs on the carriers, ❤
@@sparkiegaz3613: We don't just have "tugs" on carriers. Trust me. 😉
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUMoh I see now Russia take note ,,😂😂😂 I’m sure it said no tug boat only when I read it,,,thinking they ment it came into port unattended by them,,,my bad soz..
What do u mean we don’t just have tugs on carriers,,,😮
@@sparkiegaz3613 : 😄
Bless. A "tug" is also English slang for having a wank.
Oh yes, there were tugs!
More steps then an escalator factory…😂
I do like a lady in uniform!
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n Michael Pezzullo you're an Italian teenager, who claimed to be a US War veteran!
You rename your account yet make the same anti-British lies and hate comments
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n Michael Pezzullo with yet more vile sexist and misogynistic comments
Just to have some fighter jets and super cause you are in trials for 5years now.
Errrr .... you do know that no carrier brings aircraft into its home port right?
And its not been on trials for 5 years. It completed those years ago and has been operational for some time.
Fighter jets are disembarked way before portsmouth
Seriously?
A ramp on an air-craft- carrier?
Now why did the Americans and Japanese not ever think of that?
hmm?
You say that as if it's somehow unusual? Nowadays there's only one operational carrier using catapults outside of the US, and that belongs to France. Pretty much every other aircraft carrier intended for fixed wing operations has a Ski-Jump.
Japan haven't been relevant in the aircraft carrier game since WW2, both the steam catapult and Ski-Jump are largely the result of jet aircraft, as they need far more runway to take off.
The RN were the first to use steam catapults to enable fast jets to operate from carriers, and that was the standard for decades. But these ships generally had to be of a certain size and were very complex and expensive to operate and maintain. The UK government decided to get rid of the RNs carriers in the late 70s in favour of smaller ships largely for helicopter use.
The Sea Harrier allowed the RN to keep some fixed wing capabilities as it has short take off capabilities since it can vector its thrust, and a RN officer came up with the Ski-Jump design to further improve its take off performance from these ships, as it converts some forward momentum into a positive rate of climb, essentially creating an extra invisible runway in the air, so they needed even less space to take off from the deck of the ship.
The Soviets picked this design up eventually as it also allows for some more conventional fighters with high thrust to weight ratios the ability to launch from a deck without a catapult, albeit while they're very light, this is the launch method Russia still uses, plus China and India have both picked up on this style after buying old Soviet carriers.
The reason the USMC don't use it on their LHAs is because they'd rather sacrifice payload for an extra landing spot.
The ski ramp on the QE means the take off run at max MTOW (possible on the QE even without the ramp) needs less distance. This allows for 1/2 aircraft to land simultaneously as one departs.
@@Orbital_Inclination "The reason the USMC don't use it on their LHAs is because they'd rather sacrifice payload for an extra landing spot."(sic)
A myth perpetuated by the ignorant. Marine Corps F-35Bs launch at MTOW aboard LHAs/LHDs. F-35Bs cannot launch at MTOW aboard a ski jump equipped boat and the jump induces additional stress to the airframe which does not occur when launching from a flat deck.
"The ski ramp on the QE means the take off run at max MTOW (possible on the QE even without the ramp) needs less distance."(sic)
Incorrect. Full deck runs must be utilized aboard the QE class boats to launch in beast mode.
"This allows for 1/2 aircraft to land simultaneously as one departs."(sic)
Incorrect.
Don't opine publicly on that which you know not unless your goal is to expose your lack of acumen on the topic.
@@AA-xo9uw you're accusing me of being incorrect whilst yourself making mistakes across the board. Our F-35s can indeed launch at MTOW, and the ski jump does shorten the take off run required to do so. Beast mode F-35s have taken off from the QE.
We can also conduct simultaneous takeoff and landing ops, which has already been demonstrated in trials.
0:17