I was really confused on whether to buy a nuclear powered or a diesel powered carrier. And this video comes just in time! Thank you for clarifying that it not as simple as it sounds. I am now convinced that I should buy a nuclear powered one. Can you also hook me up with one your dealers?
A common misconception, HMS Queen Elizabeth actually runs on 100% pure Yorkshire Tea. This newly discovered element can be grown in vast quantities in fields, 100% renewable, the only bi-product of burning it is piping hot tea at 300 degrees, which doubles as heating. It is the most effective renewable energy known to mankind and tastes good, all at a very affordable price.
My dad served on the "Big E" in the late 80's. First time I saw it pull into dock in Alameda, CA, that vessel had me scared on how massive it was from a elementary school kid's perspective, LOL! Too bad it's just sitting in disarray now in Hampton. It could hopefully be turned into a museum someday with some A1s and F4s on deck.
The US Navy has Admiral Hyman G. Rickover to thank for their spotless record of zero nuclear accidents. His obsessive fixation on safety and quality control ensured that the USN had a superior safety record compared to the Soviets.
In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked Rickover how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. “Forty-eight hours,” he said. I may add that he said "a week" if they remained in port.
Pity you of course ignore he as well considered that nuclear weapons would be used from the start in 'actual' war... And with those apart from carriers you have most of the world destroyed as well within 48 hours... Fact is such that nearly 40 years after the statement, both US and other Great Powers are still building super carriers which showcases how irrelevant his view was in overall usefulness of those ships.
it was never about cost efficiency, I mean we are talking about the u.s. military here. its about pure power output and reducing strategic needs to military operations, in this case, oil.
As a former US Navy sailor I really enjoyed the video. I was stuck on the destroyer tender I never got to be on the real worship but I sure do enjoy documentaries about them. Again thanks!
Thank you for your service!! People like you are hero's sir!! I love both carriers but I would rather a nuclear powered carrier myself!! From Shaun of Wales uk!!
the ship is bigger, faster, can power more systems, and have a larger air wing all while carrying more cargo.... pretty sure strategic flexibility is the driving factor, rather than fuel economy
@@EmperorLionflame don't think you know that strategic flexibility means. as in the extended range, time on station, cargo, payload, and time to relocate means that one asset gives you more options than the other. The UK is trying to exert influence in European waters, the US is trying to exert control... everywhere. mission profiles aside, one ship was designed to have excess power for upgrade, the other was designed to be cost effective.
@@EmperorLionflame Both have their pro's and con's. As you said you can buy 3 QE's for 1 Ford class. But if your defense budget is big enough to build a 5 fords, that may be more useful than 15 QE's as the loss of 1 of them would have a smaller impact than losing your only Ford class. At that point you have a reserve, and having 5 carrier groups mean that you need less support vessels. Because that 1 QE, is going to require an escort group of similar size as a Ford class. Also the Ford has a bigger crew and more space, so more room for redundancy and combat repairs, while the QE's, well all that fuel..... Because in the end that is what matters. The US arguably won the battle of Midway because they were more capable of emergency repairs (Yorktown). Individual men, even aircraft can be replaced, but the ship itself not so much. In that sense the smaller, cheaper QE' have an advantage in the effect that the loss of a single one has on the fleet strengt (if you build them at a 3-1 ratio to Fords). That in itself is also a major concern I have with carriers, especially in an offensive role, they are big shiny targets, and any navy would happily trade a sub (the premier anti-carrier vessel) for a carrier all day long.
@@EmperorLionflame I really don't think it matters if the British piece of junk is cheaper, because guess what? England literally has 1 of them while the US can build multiple much better aircraft carriers. Why would they build 2 or 3 carriers that can barely make it across the ocean before running out of fuel, and that burn millions of gallons of fuel
@@EmperorLionflame whoa a whopping 2 aircraft carriers, you're just about matching Italy on that one 😂 Obviously a destroyer is going to hold less fuel than an aircraft carrier. You realize in a time of war it doesnt need to have that exact formation. If its destroyers were out of fuel and it really had to get somewhere it could still continue with nuclear subs and cruisers. And I think the hundreds of f35's and f22's and other jets on board are enough protection to begin with. Where are you getting thats the QE is more advanced? Lmao God damn Brits always need to feel they're better than Americans, you're literally making up stuff at this point
The British diesel powered decision wasn't just cost related. They can rely on spread out naval bases around the globe still. And there is a requirement to be able to visit foreign allied ports, in the Commonwealth, where Nuclear powered naval vessels are banned. For example Australian and New Zealand ports.
@@Stefan-jk5gx good find on the Australia front. I thought they were banned but it looks on further reading it’s discretionary on behalf of the Australian government and heavily frowned upon. New Zealand is definitely no nuclear though, and I believe there are other countries and dockyards that will not accept nuclear powered warships as well. The benefits of nuclear aren’t always a benefit when logistics, planning and integrating with allies is considered. Also, an nuclear powered aircraft carrier might have a theoretical unlimited range, but the ships escorting it do not.
@@ianmcsherry5254 You could be a little bit more respectful you know. America is hosting you on this American owned company called RUclips. I During pressing times of war United States of America is not going to care about some countries port regulations. Those stupid nonsensical port regulations would be overridden.
This was very helpful! I was having a hard time wondering whether I should go for nuclear powered aircraft carriers or diesel powered aircraft carriers. This tutorial really helped! You earned a new sub :D
7:25 : it took 13 years to built FS Charles de Gaulle because of the complexity of the ship but also because it was the end of the Cold War and the government was less willing to put money on the project for a time.
Couple things you left out: -nuclear carriers can maintain high speeds indefinitely. Convention carriers lose range when they go fast. But going fast is essential if you don't want to get hit by missiles or torpedoes. -in the event of war the price of oil will skyrocket and other vessels will need all they can get. -the price of oil and the price of oil delivered are two different things. -fuel supplies and replenishment vessels are highly vulnerable and so require resources to defend. Blockades are likely. -in the event of no available oil, it's better to have a ship that can still move at least. -aircraft can refuel in the air, lessening the need for ship replenishment. -damage control is complicated by all that vulnerable oil. Jet fuel is not especially flammable but fuel oil is. -more crew are needed to maintain diesel engines and maintenance is higher. -aircraft launches require a lot of energy, which eats aircraft range or carrier range under conventional power. -radar is energy intensive. -crew comfort via energy use. -lasers, rail guns, and electric aircraft. -the Rian Johnson scenario.
It is true that having a broad spectrum of speeds available aids in defense. But that is only a marginal matter. The real advantage of speed is the ability to maintain flight operations (both launch and recovery) for longer periods. The difference between 32 knots and 25 knots doesn’t really create a harder target profile, but the ability to sustain flight operation for multiple hours makes a huge difference both offensively and defensively. The ability to keep the CAP (combat air patrol) aloft is a really major part of the defense of the carrier task group.
@@EmperorLionflame that's not correct. torpedoes are faster than destroyers and cruisers, but not faster than a US carrier. i'm not sure if the speed is classified or not. but carriers will outrun a torpedo especially if early indication is on point and they have time to react.
@@EmperorLionflame the nuclear technician is a rate in the navy, its only doing fuel exchanges where outside help is needed and paid for. most maintence is done by navy sailors the only ships that went nuclear besides subs and carriers, which are all nuclear, was the guided cruiser. (unless there are some other ship i never heard about) it doesnt make sense that they got rid of half their nuclear fleet if subs are still a majority and were a majority at the time. especially because subs went nuclear before carriers. and if a carrier needs to run for its safety, it doesn't matter if its leaving its squad behind, carriers are much more expensive to replace compared to destroyers and cruisers.
We have forgotten that the escorts force a limit on their strategic speed. We used to comprehend this, all nuclear carriers had 2 nuclear escorts. I was there when the Nimitz battlegroup transitted Gibraltar at 30 kts in the middle of one December 1979 night on its undetectable (once it left the med) run to the Persian Gulf.
Fun fact a nuclear carrier has never been attacked. So the ecological disaster that followed its destruction can not yet be evaluated. It could be pretty grim. But we might never know.
Chernobyl was due to mismanagement and Fukushima got hit with an earthquake + a damn tsunami (also I remember reading about mismanagement there as well). Modern nuclear reactors don't blow up like that
Several nuclear submarines have been lost. While a lot smaller the same results could be anticipated. If a nuclear carrier is sunk the reactor with its fuel would most likely remain intact unless hit with a nuclear weapon. The construction materials are extremely corrosion resistant and have three barriers that must be breached before they release significant radioactive contamination. At the same time the radioactive contamination in the fuel is decaying away. We now have experience with submarines that have been on the bottom of the ocean for over sixty years. No significant radioactive leakage has been detected. At the same time most of the radioactive contamination in the core has decayed away.
The Queen Elizabeth carriers are perfect for the role Britain needs them for, and the Ford class are perfect for the role the United States needs them for. Britain is a regional great power with some aspects of power projection. The United States is a global superpower with full power projection capabilities.
@@neilgriffiths6427 don't you mean 'Sleepy Joe'? Anyhow I suspect the Americans worked out an understanding with the British whereby if they built two and concentrated on patrolling the Atlantic allowing the Americans to devote more resources to the Pacific. It would make dropping a ship more practicable, if the UK were short of planes then throw them into the deal while no-one is looking.
The fact that the Iowa class battleships are technically still part of the reserve tells me that i don't think these nuclear beasts are ever gonna be fully retired
What's wild is they retire that one ship early to save 30 billion but they handed 100 billion to Ukraine in military equipment pretty quickly. Good thing they keep it
@@TheAnnoyingBoss you can spend 30 billion on a thing that maybe, probably won't, but just a tiny chance maybe will ever fight Russia. or u can spend 100b on things that definitely will go directly to fighting Russia
They really aren't. But regardless, the nuclear part means they can't just be put into reserve. They have to be defueled and cleaned of radiation and then refilled. Conventional carriers are better reservists as they can be fueled quicker and fueling them won't be a 50 year commitment.
The US has 20. You are forgetting the Wasp and America class which are light carriers we call "amphibious assault ships." They can carry about a full squadron of F35s.
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 Thanks. But yeah the US had 21 until the Bonhomme Richard caught fire. Insane number to think about. Couldn't imagine all of them launching aircraft at once.
Except the ship doesn't run on diesel. It's heavy fuel oil. Which requires things like pre-warmers to get the fuel to the right consistency to burn correctly.
@@andypozuelos1204 Yeah, much likely or at least cheaper Cold War technology, better than WW2 tech but easier and cheaper to produce than top notch post modern technology.
I think we are overlooking the cultural change that took place during world war II. When over 50% of the US workforce was involved in the war effort. I'm willing to bet we could build a new clear carrier once a month if the chips were down
@@matthewarnold4557 definitely the U.S could produce the shit out of anything but it just won't be as good as today's weapons most of which are just too specialized and complex to build.
On other thing to consider is that the UK still has overseas basing, such as in Bahrain, Belize, the Falklands Islands etc. This is something key to the decision to building the QE class with conventional power plants.
@LAI ZHENG YI Moe i was responding to the comment Bases in Newfoundland Eastern side of the Bahamas Southern coast of Jamaica Western coast of Saint Lucia West coast of Trinidad (Gulf of Paria) Antigua British Guiana (present day Guyana) within fifty miles of Georgetown The agreement also granted the US air and naval base rights in: The Great Sound and Castle Harbour, Bermuda South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland
Nicely explained. The French governement, for the replacement of the CHarles de Gaulle, decided to invest into one giant nuclear-powered carrier. Unlike what you said at the end of the video, I think that price matters a lot. As a french myself, I would have prefered to get 2 new smaller carriers instead of one prestigious monster. Also, if you look at how hardwares developpement and sales, you will see that price is always a strong argument for or against.
I agree. 1 big one can only be in one place at a time, and if it suffers any major breakdowns, you lose all of your force projection and strike power. 2 is the minimum, but I'd still rather have 5 or 6 65000 tonne carriers than just 2. Same with the RN with Destroyers. Currently we have 6, which really isn't enough in my opinion. I could go on.
@@vxrdrummer Well, France isn't the USA, and despite our broad maritime boarders, we haven't really any reason to spread our average-sized army across the globe. Also, I am curious to see how modern warships would fare in real battles since... all rich countries now have anti-ship missiles, and anti-air missiles. Warships aren't as good as they were during WW2, same for airplanes. So many deadly threats.
@@Abandon-art You still cant scan over the horizon, an E2 is considered the most valuable aircraft on a carrier cause it can scan further being higher. Also its still the same trope as WW2 you can send 10 Hornets carrying 4 anti ship missiles each or risk a destroyer. Remember they don't know where your fleet is cause they can only scan to the horizon.
@@twocansams6335 I did not mean to say that carriers+airplanes are helpless, but probably not as dominant as in WW2. Also, these hardwares cost ridiculous amounts of money, human resources and oil. However they can be extremely effective when it comes to embargos.
The point is, a smaller aircraft carried isn't that much cheaper, but it would be significantly weaker. There's a reason why the Queen Elisabeth's are so large : size makes easier to operate and maintain the planes, and to accommodate future evolution. The Charles de Gaulle is now considered too small : modernization is difficult, the living conditions for the crew are bad compared to modern ships of the navy, and the 4000 tonnes of radio-protection material added late in the design made it slow. Adding a few thousand extra tons aren't that expensive, the cost of an aircraft carrier isn't in the steel.
I have known a couple of guys that were aviation mechanics on various conventional and fossil fueled US carriers in the 60s and 70s. On a conventional carrier, they spent a lot of time and effort cleaning what was basically soot from the stacks off of the air wing aircraft. But the soot also got into systems like avionics and environmental systems which had to be pulled from the aircraft, disassembled, cleaned, and put back in.
@@alanwatts8239 Not true in every case, but the Russians do create some interesting and innovative systems all the same. I think we in the West underestimate their capabilities at our peril - and those in the military who’ve had to deal with their world-leading electronic warfare systems know how hard a time they can cause our own systems (although there are ways to limit the damage and to counteract those systems).
On my 07 cruise on the USS John C Stennis we met up with the Charles De Gaulle in the Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf) and we got to fly over there on a Helo to do an exchange thing. We sent airframes shops to check out the Charles De Gaulle and they sent shops to check out our shops on the Stennis.. It was pretty cool. Until we realize they kept alcohol on their ship for all of their shipmates. Everyone had a limit, well except the officers. But either way, there’s NO alcohol on an American ship. We don’t get beer rations like many other Navies. Heck whenever there was a large foreign ally ship nearby that had a bar or whatnot, our pilots would fly over there on a HELO since they could fly operations no matter where we were at. They would go over there to drink and when you haven’t drank anything for months, they would come back and you could smell it on them even if they drank hours before. Only the American Navy is the only one who doesn’t have regular alcohol rations. (Not counting Beer Days). As that isn’t significant or frequent enough to be considered. As you only get a beer day if a ship reaches 72 days at sea with no sign of porting for at least a half month. So usually you’d see one around every 87 days. I been on 4 cruises and I have only seen 1 beer day. As we pulled in every month and a half. So whenever there was a French or Australian ship nearby, the higher up pilots would fly over for a night of drinking. And they say the separation of the classes is dead! LMAO
True, though that's too bad if your only carrier/most of your nuclear carriers are currently undergoing their 3-year long refueling phase. It's a critical tradeoff for a country like France, that possesses the only non-American nuclear carrier in the world. Obviously for something like the US Navy, it's a no brainer.
@@_HONK France can it’s just the ships based on naval doctrine, the Gerald R Ford needs its nuclear fuel swapped every 20 years and that is going to take quite a while to do, as they’ll have a refit during the refuel, the conventionally fuelled QEC doesn’t take nearly as long to fuel up and a carrier will still need a tanker not far away anyway because of the flight wing
@@neoginseng436 That’s exactly why submarines are where the real action happens. Sea control and sea denial are these days won and lost below the surface.
@@feliscorax agreed but one of the main reasons for a navy is to support land units and operating strike forces, an aircraft carrier is only designed as an airport so that planes can access areas far from a countrys shores
Few points missed or not covered in enough detail, IMO. 1) Capacity and expertise in nuclear reactor design. UK's has diminished. We would need to bring in people from France and the USA to help. That would be very expensive and time consuming. 2) Availability of bases in the UK that will support nuclear vessels. 3) Availability of international ports that will tolerate nuclear powered vessels. 4) Decommissioning. It was touched on but under-played IMO. UK has lots of Nuclear submarines waiting for decommissioning, for example, and USA and Russia have similar problems. A conventional fueled vessel is still difficult to decommission due to tough environmental rules, but much easier than nuclear.
It doesn’t matter if international ports tolerate them or not. Docking makes them sitting ducks, so on mission, they keep themselves moving to avoid subs by simply being faster. Their tenders speed ahead to allied ports to grab supplies, then meet up and transfer, rather than risk these massive icons of power becoming an easy target.
@@souledgar Yes, it does. Do your ships in the US only ever dock in the US? Or do they actually visit friendly ports? Ever? Certainly the RN makes a big deal of visiting it's friends and allies from time to time.
Thank you for making an unbiased video. A lot of video's seem to go in with an aim to shit on the UK in some way. It's nice to see balanced commentary on these topics. :)
@@flatmarssociety5707 That is assuming the United States isn't relying on any of its allies for its production needs... I should point out a key fact that was missed is the potential for the directed energy weapons modernization, which would be easily applied with such a surplus of energy of a nuclear power plant... The Queen Elizabeth would likely require battery banks to necessitate such an upgrade, Granting her a limited supply of shots
@@victorianavaughan9746 yea but energy weapons even though it was mentioned here are ineffective or not viable for the most part.. yea some laser weapons are sort of developed on very limited warships but rail guns are the biggest energy weapon every American believes is a viable thing they have which is completely untrue. They are self destructing unreliable technology not implemented... comparing another armies ships capabilities to the biggest tax payers wasting military in the world I’m know capabilities is dumb and useless because just because they can and did doesn’t always mean it’s worth it or viable
@@henrymorrey4150.. Yes as it stands Our current "take" on the Weapon system Leaves much to be desired...yet with it in working order, (even with The high maintenance and parts replacement) it offers a 1shot kill of a conning tower An estimated barrage for a total kill Of the Russian battle cruisers.. none the less Athena Has performed adequately In a defensive capacity, granting a cheap, Reliable and Unrelenting air defence system... yet with a superior range then the valcon cannons.. This is an improvement on the current system or is currently the rail gun does not offer much of an improvement of the antiship missile or cruise missile equivalency. Good to talk with someone who knows their stuff
Aside from the cost there are distinct operational advantages to the large American nuclear carriers. The lack of large fuel tanks means there is more room for jet fuel, munitions and personnel. This means that they can have a higher operational tempo, fly more sorties before needing to take on jet fuel and replenish armaments. Coupled with the large numbers of aircraft that they can carry this means a bigger punch and the ability to deliver more ordnance and strike more targets. It also means that the carriers can reach their destinations more quickly in the event of a war or a crisis. The top speed of the US nuclear carriers is classified but it is likely higher than conventional carriers. Plus the maximum range of a conventional carrier is predicated on it travelling at an economical cruising speed which is well below its maximum speed whereas a nuclear carrier's range is not under a similar constraint. There may also be a need to operate at above the max endurance cruise speed in order to generate sufficient wind speed over the flight deck to launch aircraft. Finally, the ability of the nuclear power plants to generate large amounts of electrical power means that US carriers can effectively operate the new electromagnetic catapults and future energy weapons such as lasers.
Ok, your carrier can go around the Horn of Africa, whilst ours goes through the Suez Canal. Let's race to the Straights of Hormuz. Oh, and good luck with those future weapons! Here any day now...
You're telling me that you save space despite the: Nuclear radiation shields Extra armour for the engines Water desalination plant Really bro? You talk about em catapult launchers but the QE class can be fitted with them later if nessasary and as for the energy weapons, they're still not viable enough to be put on the Ford class. Need I remind you that the ford class is 67% larger then the QE class? The QE class doesn't need Nuclear power because it isn't meant to operate in the Pacific and making it Nuclear would be too costly when the UK is planning to increase its naval power.
4kg... imagine holding 4 packs of sugar. That's enough fuel for an entire aircraft carrier to move at full thrust for an entire week! Also, refuel after 20 years... for 4 years? Imagine the complexity of these systems!! That is insane!!! Loved this video, keep it up!
Love when a channel proposes a question, wastes at least 10 minutes of my time, and ends on the complete copout of “it depends”, thanks dude, I totally couldn’t fathom the idea that it depends on the military force you want.
6:14 That $2.6 billion figure you nonchalantly put out there. Is not just for refueling the nuclear power plants. But a major overhaul of the ship itself too. So that figure was quite literally comparing apples to oranges. As you did not mention any kind of overhaul figures for a diesel ship at the same time frame of 20 to 25 years in age.
Hi Robert, yes that figure was for “refuelling and complex overhaul” as we mentioned in the video at 6:06. We were talking about how refuelling conventional carriers is more time-consuming compared to nuclear carriers, but that the convenience of not having to refuel a nuclear carrier for a long time comes at a cost. Refuelling and Overhaul (ROH) of a nuclear carrier is not something that we could split into two, as it is practically performed as one procedure (and yes, it includes other modernization work). We were not suggesting that the $2.6 billion figure is too high (or too low), but rather it just is.
I’ve always said our military (US) doesn’t want to be caught with their pants down again. WW2 changed a lot for the US military. We went from one of the smallest to the largest. Essentially, these carriers could move constantly. Wouldn’t have to be docked. Wouldn’t be at as much risk
@@grathian Before hostilities broke out, the US had a fairly small land army of just 190,000 enlisted men. That included the air force too as the USAF didn't even exist at that point. It was part of the army. Britain had the largest Navy up until about midway through WW2.
Currently China has overtaken the US in number of ships overall. The big difference is in the size, complexity and effectiveness of the ships concerned, and the infrastructure behind them. Here the US is the clear winner!
I was on a nuclear carrier in the 90's and some buddies came over from the the USS America which was diesel, they complained that diesel fumes were everywhere, food, water, and the air. They enjoyed the ability not to have that on the nuclear carrier. And the short take-off and especially the vertical take-offs burn more fuel than being catted.
@Scott Cole So what were the Kitty Hawk class ran by? The Enterprise, Nimitz class, and the Ford class are nukes. Hence the CVN vs the CV for shorthand CVN-65 stands for Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier Enterprise and CV-66 was Carrier America.
@@virusj216 I personally recommend to start with a small Diesel once you get the hang of it then scale up When scaling you can go for numbers or size. If you go for size only try nuclear if you already have experience with simillar machinery.
One other aspect said to have been a contributory factor in the QE class being non-nuclear is the increasing dearth (in the West) of appropriately trained _nuclear technicians_ in the military capable of properly maintaining a nuclear reactor. Indeed, France’s ill-fated Charles De Gaulle carrier has apparently suffered from this expertise shortfall, amongst an array of other embarrassing maintenance/reliability issues that has seen the ship in dock more than it has at sea! There are clear advantages to nuclear power of course but I can understand why diesel was chosen by the Royal Navy.
Same. Both nations chose what makes sense for them. The USA has all the money in the world and have the duties of a superpower to undertake. Therefore the immense power of Nuclear despite its higher costs makes sense m. Meanwhile the QE is far simpler and smaller making it perfect for what England needs which is a ship which is built for local power projection but can go long range. Same thing with their plane loadouts
Even civilian diesel vessels with any kind of a steam system (most have exhaust gas boilers for example) have some form of a desalinisation plant in them though.
I'm with team nuclear. That 1 million gallons of fuel takes time to refine and frankly, it could be used elsewhere. It would be great if we could have nuclear powered aircraft, tanks and trucks etc but its not very practical whereas on a ship, it works well with proper training and maintenance.
The USA has the Nevada desert to go bury decommissioned nuclear waste , and what the hell would the UK do with similar waste? I suspect the French may try to dump it in Mali or Niger or something like that. In short if the Uk can only afford to build six destroyers and six attack submarines & can’t even have a full complement of aircraft on their two carriers, then they can’t certainly afford nuclear carriers. Just two expensive for the shrinking budgets 😊
I love to watch this video very much! It isn't only to increase our knowledge but we come to know more the differences between the two gigantic supper carriers that surely 'they' the millitary will never let us know; and much of it we don't know! Thanks for the show!
Big difference is the aircraft launch system. With catapult systems, the load can be heavier then the ramp (limited to aircraft performance specifications) systems
It's called "we don't have a pot to piss in". A CATOBAR system would have added a billion or more to the carrier's price. As for the Ford's Cats not being operational it is very rare for a new system to work right out of the box. You are talking about one of the eleven carriers we operate. I know, "our modern carrier can out sortie those old vessels". Actually, no it can't the QE is rated for 75 sorties a day with a theoretical one time maximum of 110 a day (people have to sleep). The Nimitz flew 975 fixed wing war time sorties over four days in July of 1997. (It pays to have a bigger crew and Cats).
@@neilgriffiths6427 Its a new technology, so it's going to take a while for them to get all the kinks out... and going by the numbers and fail rates of today compared to 2009, it's come a long way.
@@rburns9730 Britain could have afforded a CATOBAR carrier but successive governments have been underfunding defence for decades. That said, the QE design was almost certainly the right way to go for our needs and limitations, especially since the F-35B performs so well that it's at far less of a disadvantage than the Harrier was. EMALS will no doubt be brilliant but any new system has issues and while that's not a problem for the US which can fall back on its older carriers that use steam catapults, the UK has no such backup. The claim about QE having a higher sortie rate wasn't in comparison to US supercarriers with 4 catapults, it was to the CATOBAR version of the QE class design which only had a pair of them.
Easy answer, I choose the Nuclear carrier over Disseil any time. 1) you can carry more Avaition fuel 2) you can reduce the number of steam driven catapults for Electric. 3) The 2 above just saved a ton of space for, more Avation fuel, and ammo storage. 4) If you are in a full war and you lose all your support ships and you got luck to keep a full wing of planes, 50% avation fuel, and the nuclear engine, you have a chance to A) continue the fight which is risky, and until you run low on ammo. B) Return to a supply base which if you did use dissel fuel you would run out C) play hide and seek until your 2nd fleet comes and supply you to continue the fight. D) head back to base for repairs, as long as the engines are not damage, you will make it back with out the need to worry about fuel. D1) If you did have to worry about fuel, you would have to turn back early or meet up with a supply fleet.
Diesels cheaper, so you can afford more support ships. A tide class is less than 5% the cost of QE and carries more fuel. You arguments are about 1 to 1 but the reality is cost to cost.
The UK carrier iirc were delayed for several years due to budgetary reason. So the cost and length of time to build was greater than it should of been.
I get the feeling that nuclear has a lot more room for improvement in the future. Otherwise, I guess it's nice if your giant floating sea base doesn't get stranded when raiders sink your refueling ships, but if you just use them to defend your local sea territory, perhaps that doesn't matter.
Crewing levels on nuclear vs non-nuclear carriers is a big factor. The Royal Navy doesn't have sufficient nuclear-qualified engineering crew to operate even one nuclear carrier, they're all deployed on subs including the deterrent bomber fleet. I think the QE-class carriers have a ship crew (excluding air wing and embarked Marines) of 700 whereas the smaller nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle has a ship crew of 1350. The Nimitz and Ford class American carriers have ship crews in excess of 2000 each. The wage bill difference alone over a few decades of operation will add up, never mind the recruiting, training and manning levels that need to be met to support deployments and mission operations.
The Royal Navy isn't stupid enough to sail on Nuclear reactors during warfare. Don't think for one minute that any vessel is unsinkable nor is there any metal or alloy strong enough to protect them, Rectors. God help all on board when hit because the fleet couldn't help as poisoning would kill all. The USA hasn't been involved in naval warfare since WW2 so don't forget the horror and reality. The British only use Nuclear power on Subs that carry Nuclear warheads as it would game over if hit anyway
I wonder if the Nuclear factor would ever make a potential aggressor hold back an attack or pose a moral dilemma for such action. Especially if one is on your doorstep
Good point, especially considering having a carrier off your coast doesn't just mean there are bombers at the ready, but also at least 1-3 fast attack subs lurking in the depths
If it was Nato, yes, if it's US, Russia, or China, no. If war starts we don't give a darn about what is powering it, if it's a warship or a military target, it is going to the bottom.
@@Predator42ID also depends on where the thing is. Most nations wouldn't have a problem with sending one to the bottom so long as it's not near anything.
@@ezraprice6709 If you send an active nuclear reactor to the bottom of the ocean it is 'near' everything - eventually. You can't contain radiation in water. Eventually it would poison everything.
@@burlatsdemontaigne6147 nah, depends really, if it gets ripped open by a torpedo or collision and dumped into the ocean then yeah the radiation would be a problem. But if it simply sinks along with the ship to the bottom of the ocean, the reactor devices are tough and due to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean it'll probably hold. Even if it melts, it'll have to go through many layers of the ship and it'll cool a lot before sinking into the clay at the bottom of the ocean, there's plenty of naturally occurring uranium anyways, won't harm anything when it's deep inside the earth.
I’ve served on a nuke carrier with men who served on the Kennedy also. They much much preferred the Nuclear. I can tell you quality of life is far better for sailors in nuke ships. Most of the costs in the Nuke carrier is the regulations, not the power plants or nuclear materials. The US defense industry can’t build anything without making a bunch of defense contractors super rich.
Modern engines are far smaller, cleaner and much more efficient , I suspect crew on the Kennedy would be amazed at the engine rooms in new build ships whether military or commercial. That is one area where nuclears advantage has been eroded.
@@andrewdeacon8315 not really eroded. The advantage is not carrying fuel your burning for propulsion.. so you can carry more fuel for aircraft, more welcome, produce far more electricity and still no rationing of water.
@@bret9741 eroded in the sense that with the engines being much smaller and more efficient much more space is available for aviation fuel etc , I have seen a comparison with the Kennedy and difference is very significant though I can’t remember the exact details. But yes of course nuclear is still ahead in this regard.
When you actually go to war on one we will see the devastation because nothing on earth can protect anything from weaponry and the USA hasn’t seen Naval warfare since WW2
When talking about fuel usage in volume/weight, a consideration not taken into account, is the total size and weight of the powerplant and fuel source combined. Fuel tanks can be any size/shape around the ship, whereas the nuclear plant has to be installed as a primary concern and other equipment must make space for it to be so.
The reason nuclear is not widely adopted in the civilian sector is because the average civilian is quite dumb and the closest they ever got to nuclear power was watching a nuke detonate on a screen and a bunch of angry and equally ignorant protesters trying to ban anything nuclear related. As a result, there just isn't enough interest in developing the technology.
worth noting that the nuclear vessels require specialist shipyards for repair/maintenance whereas the conventionally powered British vessel could be repaired anywhere... an important operational consideration
Excellent video and discussion - I was also wondering about the manpower levels for each carrier. I had heard there was more automation on the Queen Elizabeth class ship meaning much less manpower requirement.
Curious droid did a good video on why don’t the UK produce nuclear powered carriers. The reasons make a lot of sense especially when you have to think about decommissioning and the costs that must involve dealing with a nuclear power plant,
Very informative video, great explaination and amazing use of imagery. I personality think the age of the carrier is soon to be over, especially because russia, china and india have hypersonic missiles (that go around mach 8) that can heavily damage carriers and render them useless until they head back for repairs.
It's probably going to be some time before carriers are completely obsolete, after all, China has been trying to play catch-up in the carrier game for the last decade or two and are building a number of carriers at the moment, and India are building their first indigenous carrier. So they must see some benefit in them still. There's also countries like South Korea and Japan beginning to develop carriers now too. One thing to bare in mind is that you still need to be able to target and accurately track a carrier in order to hit it, they're relatively fast moving ships and can operate in vast areas of ocean. You'd need a lot of satellites in low earth orbit to keep constant track of them to be able to guide a missile in, but in a future war there's a good chance those satellite systems will be targeted also.
@@Benjd0 that's indeed true, The building rates for carriers are rather high and the fact that even russia is planning to build a few new ones (project 23000e shtorm and Lamantin). But in my oppinion the age of the hypersonic missiles (that can change trajectories quiclkly and unexpectedly to avoid aa) like Zircon (or Tsirkon) for example is rather close. You also mentionned the ability to shoot satelites down in LEO (Low Earth Orbit). There is now already an anti air missile that's currently being tested, that's expected to be capable of doing such things. It's called the S500 😄
And those are the exact reasons why the US is investing in lasers and railguns: it doesn't matter how fast your missile is if it can get shot out of the sky miles away from the target. Coincidentally, this may bring about the rebirth of big gun battleships, since that same logic can apply to aircraft as well.
...and that too when you are not calculating the differential in maintenance cost. If you calculate and add that difference in maintenance cost to the construction cost then in the lifecycle cost of operating one Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier, you could perhaps operate five or six conventionally powered aircraft carriers. Yet, my friend, you’re calculating only value for money. You’re not thinking about value for power. The value for power lies in those extra 25% tricks that a nuclear powered carrier can perform but even 5 conventionally powered carriers combined together can’t. To calculate value for power, you shall have to forget about the costs completely and compare the two classes of ships vis-a-vis each other purely on the basis of performance. There the 25% deficiency in capabilities could become a matter of life and death. To begin with, for every tonne of weight, QE Class can carry fewer aircrafts as it is forced to carry more fuel. Also, since its engines produce lesser amount of power, a STOVL type QE class carrier can carry fewer types of fighter and reconnaissance aircrafts. For example, it cannot carry fixed wing reconnaissance aircrafts like E-2 Hawkeye (operated by both types of US super carriers and also French nuclear powered carrier Charles de Gaulle), as Hawkeye cannot be launched from a QE class. So QE Class type is forced to make do with helicopters fitted with radars which have lesser speed and lesser range. Hence, the radius of awareness of QE class aircraft carriers is significantly smaller in comparison to Charles de Gaulle, Nimitz class or Ford class nuclear powered aircraft carriers. For some countries, that 25% extra capability might matter more than five times cost because it adds to its fighting power and survivability of the ship. One nuclear powered carrier has some capabilities which two conventionally powered carriers do not. In conclusion, 75% + 75% of 2 QE class carriers is not necessarily greater than 100% of Ford Class Carrier. In a head to head battle in an open ocean, the more powerful reconnaissance aircrafts of USS Gerald R. Ford would detect both HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales first. In a battle, the one who sees first, gets to fires first. On top of that, because catapult assisted takeoff gives extra power to the aircraft during launch, F-35 C can also take off with a bigger weapons payload than F-35 B (the variant of F-35 that can be launched from QE class carriers). And to add insult to the injury, F-35 C also has a higher range i.e. it can fly to greater distance without refuelling because F-35 B has to expend a lot of fuel in vertical landing and because of its complicated technology F-35 B is costlier than F-35C too. In conclusion, you might produce 5 QE Class carriers in the price of one Ford class carrier but in battlefield that 25% edge in capabilities, that Ford Class has, would sink five QE class carriers every time. Hence, my friend, QE class might be more value for money, Ford Class is more value for power.
@@a.k.830 £280b extra over the lifetime of the ship, £15b a year. We have made compromises but it's still better then the Liaoning or the Charles de Gaulle. F35b standard weapon load will be 8 spear 3 mini cruise missiles, 2 meteor missiles, and 2 asraam missiles, this load will be able to handle most adversaries the royal navy is likely to encounter. As for the range deficiency between the the B and C variants, I'm just waiting for a tilt rotor tanker, like the 1 the usmc are developing.
Dear @@steve-iw2bg , I agree with all you have written except that HMS Queen Elizabeth is better than French Charles de Gaulle. I would say that on some accounts it is better and on some accounts it is inferior to the French carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth has been built with newer tech and is bigger than Charles de Gaulle but CATOBAR type carriers do have some inherent advantages over STOVL type carriers, which no one can deny. On top of it, CdG has advantages of being nuclear powered. Disclaimer- I am not disputing that Queen Elizabeth class carriers are A-class ships and the UK took the right decision by opting to make it diesel powered. I would like to add that this was rather a wise decision by HM government. Had I been the advisor to the United States Navy, I would have tried to persuade the US Navy to procure 5 nuclear powered and 15 diesel powered aircraft carriers instead of 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. After all, “Quantity has a quality of its own”. My previous reply was only a response to your question about ‘value for power’. You can justify buying 2 Toyotas instead of a Mercedes and yet saving a lot of money, whereas a hardcore Mercedes fan would insist on buying a Mercedes only (in this analogy, France is the Mercedes fan as they have opted to make even their next carrier nuclear powered). Some desire value for money, some insist only top line product (in my words value for power) though they may not use all the features of the product. In my opinion, both sides of arguments are equally justifiable.
Coming as Boeing and Airbus are fielding electrically propelled planes and next carrier will have even more reserve electric power. Has the USN fishing for food on long away missions?
Grew up in Connecticut, dad was an army officer lifer and we used to go the Officer's and NCO clubs at the Groton/New London sub base. Used to be able to see the original Nautilus from the bridge as we approached. Also we lived about 5 miles from the main Combustion Engineering plant where the major assemblies of the special compact sub reactors were developed and produced. Of course in those days the nuclear navy was strictly submarine in nature. We used to joke around about our area being a priority on Russia's target list as Pratt and Whitney, Hamilton Standard and of course the enormous Colt factory were also nearby. There were Nike sites all over the place but we all know now what a joke they were. Sorry to go off topic, but give me a chance to reminisce and you are in trouble. 😉
Ahhh a fellow CT person. Yeah it’s nuts how much strategic shit exist in CT. For such a small state we punch well above our weight in terms of contribution to national defense. Also the Nautilus is a fucking rad museum
I was stationed on both types: USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). The Kennedy was the last conventional-powered carrier and the Eisenhower (nicknamed "Ike") was the third nuclear-powered carrier (after Enterprise and Nimitz).
@@bananaman7433 To me, the only thing is security. Security is tighter because of the nuclear reactors. Other than that, no difference. We did the same thing on both carriers.
Am I missing something? Surely if the rest of the defence and support fleet are diesel powered, then the range of nuclear carriers is irrelevant. They never sail alone. The carriers could have a range of 3 billion miles and a speed of 200 knots, they would still have to wait for the destroyers, frigates and supply ships.
That said, those few refueling ships that run with the carrier group can refuel the other escorts many more times if they don't have to refill the carrier too. So the same diesel resources can be stretched a lot further, extending the range of the entire group.
no catapult is actually is a big issue for military operations, planes can only take off half-loaded on a short runway. in a real war you'd want to send them armed to the teeth.
Exactly - UK could afford a single carrier with nukes. Sure it would be better then QE - but would be ONE. Having two less capable ships >> single ship.
Tankers are a logistical nightmare and need their own fuel, plus they're very very vulnerable to attack. I would argue that in a highly mobile war in the Pacific, you'd want fully nuclear battle groups. Not just the carriers.
The first QE UK carrier to be built, underwent sea trials in 2017. With the diesels and gas turbines flat out, it attained 32knots. This was verified by the AIS tracking system. The US carriers would also exceed their quoted 30 knots , easily .
It's always the same. When we brought T45 Ship 2 out of build and gave her a spanking with 52400shp being generated by the 2 WR21 GTs, we got 32.7knots as appose to the quoted 28 max. Same with T42s. We got 33 on HMs Gloucester. The Nimitz class will supposedly get 35 max chat. I'm not surprised that QE went that fast with the IEP and MT30s driving it on there, each being RESTRICTED to just 36 MWs...which is still crazy power for one gazzy. If I remember rightly, they are normally 43-45 MW in the aircraft version, so are derated quite a lot for the marine version.
@@vxrdrummer I had a very interesting conversation with the then-commander of HMS Prince of Wales about the advances that it and the F-35B brought to the Navy. He also talked about serving onboard a Type 23 frigate and mentioned the time they took part in a joint exercise in the North Sea during which they tracked USS Enterprise on radar doing 41 knots flat out. She was an unusual vessel though - the only one of her type with a longer hull (hence higher speed) than the Nimitz class and 8 reactors to provide power. I believe one of her less flattering nicknames was "The Mobile Chernobyl"
the US navy made one spent 500 million on it the decision to scrap it and instead develop "hypervelocity projectiles" and "directed energy weapons" essentially fast shells and laser weapons
Nuclear carriers all the way. In the event of a war, not having to rely on fuel is crucial, and then they can carry additional aircraft fuel and munitions for prolonged deployment
@@Beari91 The other ships are mainly there to stop the carrier instantly getting obliterated by torpedoes or a missile strike. At war against any modern power, a carrier that moved beyond its strike group, is a dead carrier.
@@Beari91 But most those escort vessels (minus nuclear submarines) require conventional fuel. Meaning the carrier strike group is still limited by its supplies of conventional fuel.
@@doflamingo7973 Im sure they have, i'm also sure they have petrol extraction sites nearby the UK island. But i'm thinking of an hypothetical scenario in which UK island is under siege.
Ford is having quite a number of kinks that are being worked out. Hopefully the other Fords in production don't get completed until all the bugs are worked out.
It’s not the power generation. It’s the amount of aircraft and their range that matters. Moving vertically, or a ski assisted takeoff, it takes more fuel to takeoff and land presuming there are minimal landing inaccuracies.
@@Creeperownr exactly, and assuming that there is a problem, you have to jettison most of your payload because the VTOL mode doesn't have as much thrust
I was really confused on whether to buy a nuclear powered or a diesel powered carrier. And this video comes just in time! Thank you for clarifying that it not as simple as it sounds. I am now convinced that I should buy a nuclear powered one. Can you also hook me up with one your dealers?
just don't buy it from the Chinese or it will disintegrate even before u put it out for sea trials
I unfortunately bought a diesel one before seeing this videos warning.. 🤦♂️ now look at me with egg on my face
maybe, ask the dealer who made the engine and body frame of the carrier. I mean, who knows, they might be selling 1 or 2
I thought there will be a few r/woooshes in the reply section
@@knowhowislam3431 same, but alas no, everyone got the joke
A common misconception, HMS Queen Elizabeth actually runs on 100% pure Yorkshire Tea. This newly discovered element can be grown in vast quantities in fields, 100% renewable, the only bi-product of burning it is piping hot tea at 300 degrees, which doubles as heating. It is the most effective renewable energy known to mankind and tastes good, all at a very affordable price.
LOL
Also, the carrier ceases operations daily between 3pm and 4pm, and biscuits are served to the crew.
Tako dishing real facts here.
Sounds like the spiffing brit
@@jayyydizzzle Damn it, you beat me to that comment lol
My dad served on the "Big E" in the late 80's. First time I saw it pull into dock in Alameda, CA, that vessel had me scared on how massive it was from a elementary school kid's perspective, LOL! Too bad it's just sitting in disarray now in Hampton. It could hopefully be turned into a museum someday with some A1s and F4s on deck.
The US Navy has Admiral Hyman G. Rickover to thank for their spotless record of zero nuclear accidents. His obsessive fixation on safety and quality control ensured that the USN had a superior safety record compared to the Soviets.
In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked Rickover how long American carriers would survive in an actual war.
“Forty-eight hours,” he said.
I may add that he said "a week" if they remained in port.
@@AudieHolland they are carriers not battleship or destroyers.
@@AudieHolland Better than the Chinese ships these days that could survive for 20 minutes (guess who's a treasonous paid troll?).
@@SouthernHerdsman Please do tell.
Pity you of course ignore he as well considered that nuclear weapons would be used from the start in 'actual' war... And with those apart from carriers you have most of the world destroyed as well within 48 hours... Fact is such that nearly 40 years after the statement, both US and other Great Powers are still building super carriers which showcases how irrelevant his view was in overall usefulness of those ships.
it was never about cost efficiency, I mean we are talking about the u.s. military here. its about pure power output and reducing strategic needs to military operations, in this case, oil.
I'm glad someone also realizes this.
Exactly! This video is WAY off base on this.
Low key ironic that they use nuclear fuel in order to capture oil hahah
Your name kinda similar to mine bro
Exactly, don’t need to carry fuel for the ship, which empties up space and weight for aviation fuel.
As a former US Navy sailor I really enjoyed the video. I was stuck on the destroyer tender I never got to be on the real worship but I sure do enjoy documentaries about them. Again thanks!
This old Cold War era army grunt says thanks for your service.
Don't minimize what you did - tenders and other supply chain vessels are equally important. thanks for your service. It's all valuable.
Thank you for your service!! People like you are hero's sir!! I love both carriers but I would rather a nuclear powered carrier myself!! From Shaun of Wales uk!!
the ship is bigger, faster, can power more systems, and have a larger air wing all while carrying more cargo.... pretty sure strategic flexibility is the driving factor, rather than fuel economy
@@EmperorLionflame don't think you know that strategic flexibility means. as in the extended range, time on station, cargo, payload, and time to relocate means that one asset gives you more options than the other. The UK is trying to exert influence in European waters, the US is trying to exert control... everywhere. mission profiles aside, one ship was designed to have excess power for upgrade, the other was designed to be cost effective.
@@EmperorLionflame Both have their pro's and con's. As you said you can buy 3 QE's for 1 Ford class. But if your defense budget is big enough to build a 5 fords, that may be more useful than 15 QE's as the loss of 1 of them would have a smaller impact than losing your only Ford class. At that point you have a reserve, and having 5 carrier groups mean that you need less support vessels. Because that 1 QE, is going to require an escort group of similar size as a Ford class.
Also the Ford has a bigger crew and more space, so more room for redundancy and combat repairs, while the QE's, well all that fuel..... Because in the end that is what matters. The US arguably won the battle of Midway because they were more capable of emergency repairs (Yorktown). Individual men, even aircraft can be replaced, but the ship itself not so much. In that sense the smaller, cheaper QE' have an advantage in the effect that the loss of a single one has on the fleet strengt (if you build them at a 3-1 ratio to Fords).
That in itself is also a major concern I have with carriers, especially in an offensive role, they are big shiny targets, and any navy would happily trade a sub (the premier anti-carrier vessel) for a carrier all day long.
@@EmperorLionflame incorrect there you can have 1 Ford for 3-4 QEs
@@EmperorLionflame I really don't think it matters if the British piece of junk is cheaper, because guess what? England literally has 1 of them while the US can build multiple much better aircraft carriers. Why would they build 2 or 3 carriers that can barely make it across the ocean before running out of fuel, and that burn millions of gallons of fuel
@@EmperorLionflame whoa a whopping 2 aircraft carriers, you're just about matching Italy on that one 😂 Obviously a destroyer is going to hold less fuel than an aircraft carrier. You realize in a time of war it doesnt need to have that exact formation. If its destroyers were out of fuel and it really had to get somewhere it could still continue with nuclear subs and cruisers. And I think the hundreds of f35's and f22's and other jets on board are enough protection to begin with. Where are you getting thats the QE is more advanced? Lmao God damn Brits always need to feel they're better than Americans, you're literally making up stuff at this point
The British diesel powered decision wasn't just cost related. They can rely on spread out naval bases around the globe still. And there is a requirement to be able to visit foreign allied ports, in the Commonwealth, where Nuclear powered naval vessels are banned. For example Australian and New Zealand ports.
@@Stefan-jk5gx good find on the Australia front. I thought they were banned but it looks on further reading it’s discretionary on behalf of the Australian government and heavily frowned upon. New Zealand is definitely no nuclear though, and I believe there are other countries and dockyards that will not accept nuclear powered warships as well. The benefits of nuclear aren’t always a benefit when logistics, planning and integrating with allies is considered. Also, an nuclear powered aircraft carrier might have a theoretical unlimited range, but the ships escorting it do not.
America docks where it wants. It pays to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world.
@@MatthewSimpson2006 I mean it has 2 cargo ships that can dock at allied docks
@@sterlingeaton3083 what are you, about ten years old?
@@ianmcsherry5254 You could be a little bit more respectful you know. America is hosting you on this American owned company called RUclips. I
During pressing times of war United States of America is not going to care about some countries port regulations. Those stupid nonsensical port regulations would be overridden.
This was very helpful! I was having a hard time wondering whether I should go for nuclear powered aircraft carriers or diesel powered aircraft carriers. This tutorial really helped! You earned a new sub :D
7:25 : it took 13 years to built FS Charles de Gaulle because of the complexity of the ship but also because it was the end of the Cold War and the government was less willing to put money on the project for a time.
Correct, same reasoning for the significant delays in Russian production if projects after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
@nick 148 nobody needed your stupid comment.
@@fcalvaresi well you're rude
Or maybe yall ate to many snails
@@jayasuriyas2604 sorry I was answering to another guy who deleted his comment.
Couple things you left out:
-nuclear carriers can maintain high speeds indefinitely. Convention carriers lose range when they go fast. But going fast is essential if you don't want to get hit by missiles or torpedoes.
-in the event of war the price of oil will skyrocket and other vessels will need all they can get.
-the price of oil and the price of oil delivered are two different things.
-fuel supplies and replenishment vessels are highly vulnerable and so require resources to defend. Blockades are likely.
-in the event of no available oil, it's better to have a ship that can still move at least.
-aircraft can refuel in the air, lessening the need for ship replenishment.
-damage control is complicated by all that vulnerable oil. Jet fuel is not especially flammable but fuel oil is.
-more crew are needed to maintain diesel engines and maintenance is higher.
-aircraft launches require a lot of energy, which eats aircraft range or carrier range under conventional power.
-radar is energy intensive.
-crew comfort via energy use.
-lasers, rail guns, and electric aircraft.
-the Rian Johnson scenario.
It is true that having a broad spectrum of speeds available aids in defense. But that is only a marginal matter. The real advantage of speed is the ability to maintain flight operations (both launch and recovery) for longer periods. The difference between 32 knots and 25 knots doesn’t really create a harder target profile, but the ability to sustain flight operation for multiple hours makes a huge difference both offensively and defensively. The ability to keep the CAP (combat air patrol) aloft is a really major part of the defense of the carrier task group.
@@EmperorLionflame that's not correct. torpedoes are faster than destroyers and cruisers, but not faster than a US carrier. i'm not sure if the speed is classified or not. but carriers will outrun a torpedo especially if early indication is on point and they have time to react.
@@EmperorLionflame the nuclear technician is a rate in the navy, its only doing fuel exchanges where outside help is needed and paid for. most maintence is done by navy sailors
the only ships that went nuclear besides subs and carriers, which are all nuclear, was the guided cruiser. (unless there are some other ship i never heard about) it doesnt make sense that they got rid of half their nuclear fleet if subs are still a majority and were a majority at the time. especially because subs went nuclear before carriers.
and if a carrier needs to run for its safety, it doesn't matter if its leaving its squad behind, carriers are much more expensive to replace compared to destroyers and cruisers.
We have forgotten that the escorts force a limit on their strategic speed. We used to comprehend this, all nuclear carriers had 2 nuclear escorts. I was there when the Nimitz battlegroup transitted Gibraltar at 30 kts in the middle of one December 1979 night on its undetectable (once it left the med) run to the Persian Gulf.
Great in peacetime but they’ll be true horror in warfare
Fun fact a nuclear carrier has never been attacked. So the ecological disaster that followed its destruction can not yet be evaluated. It could be pretty grim. But we might never know.
Chernobyl was due to mismanagement and Fukushima got hit with an earthquake + a damn tsunami (also I remember reading about mismanagement there as well). Modern nuclear reactors don't blow up like that
Several nuclear submarines have been lost. While a lot smaller the same results could be anticipated. If a nuclear carrier is sunk the reactor with its fuel would most likely remain intact unless hit with a nuclear weapon. The construction materials are extremely corrosion resistant and have three barriers that must be breached before they release significant radioactive contamination. At the same time the radioactive contamination in the fuel is decaying away. We now have experience with submarines that have been on the bottom of the ocean for over sixty years. No significant radioactive leakage has been detected. At the same time most of the radioactive contamination in the core has decayed away.
pfft, everone knows the USS enterprise is powered by a matter-antimatter warp drive.
nerd
The big E and one tough boat
@@cisarovnajosefina4525 didn't you out yourself as a nerd now, since you knew what i was talking about?
Not any more it has been decommissioned
@@davidhovland5690 What
The Queen Elizabeth carriers are perfect for the role Britain needs them for, and the Ford class are perfect for the role the United States needs them for. Britain is a regional great power with some aspects of power projection. The United States is a global superpower with full power projection capabilities.
I suspect that may have to change now that China knows "Uncle Joe" Biden is in charge...
@@neilgriffiths6427 don't you mean 'Sleepy Joe'? Anyhow I suspect the Americans worked out an understanding with the British whereby if they built two and concentrated on patrolling the Atlantic allowing the Americans to devote more resources to the Pacific. It would make dropping a ship more practicable, if the UK were short of planes then throw them into the deal while no-one is looking.
Ma l'america gli serviva anche per lanciare i droni/bombardieri
France got a nuclear carrier and not England ?
@@ni9274 the UK has two conventionally powered carriers. They feel that nuclear wasn't for them.
The fact that the Iowa class battleships are technically still part of the reserve tells me that i don't think these nuclear beasts are ever gonna be fully retired
Not sure what you mean by in reserve, they are all museum ships and stricken from the naval register
What's wild is they retire that one ship early to save 30 billion but they handed 100 billion to Ukraine in military equipment pretty quickly. Good thing they keep it
@@TheAnnoyingBoss you can spend 30 billion on a thing that maybe, probably won't, but just a tiny chance maybe will ever fight Russia.
or u can spend 100b on things that definitely will go directly to fighting Russia
they are definitely not reserve
They really aren't. But regardless, the nuclear part means they can't just be put into reserve. They have to be defueled and cleaned of radiation and then refilled. Conventional carriers are better reservists as they can be fueled quicker and fueling them won't be a 50 year commitment.
Navy: Yea these things are a little expensive. You guys mind if we scale back from 11 to 10? 🥺
Congress: how dare
Yeah they are but atleast the cost building one is almost circulated around american poeple soo its still worth it
Brock Casey but comparing it how big the economy of the u.s its very cheap
The US has 20. You are forgetting the Wasp and America class which are light carriers we call "amphibious assault ships." They can carry about a full squadron of F35s.
@@ThatCarGuy agree
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 Thanks. But yeah the US had 21 until the Bonhomme Richard caught fire. Insane number to think about. Couldn't imagine all of them launching aircraft at once.
You deserve more viewss...Very informative and we'll researched
Couldn't say it better!
Except the ship doesn't run on diesel. It's heavy fuel oil. Which requires things like pre-warmers to get the fuel to the right consistency to burn correctly.
My thoughts also
Agree
Calling the QEs "diesel" propelled isn't exactly well researched.
WOW! Not what I thought at all. This is a great documentary, but then this is what i expect from your talent. Thank you. 😊
Everyone needs to be careful in a protracted war since you can’t replace carriers fast like WW2.
Thats why I always think WW3 will start with modern weapons and then end up fighting like WW2.
@@andypozuelos1204 Yeah, much likely or at least cheaper Cold War technology, better than WW2 tech but easier and cheaper to produce than top notch post modern technology.
@@animeturnMMD and a few UAVs, perhaps in fighter roles like Spitfires
I think we are overlooking the cultural change that took place during world war II. When over 50% of the US workforce was involved in the war effort. I'm willing to bet we could build a new clear carrier once a month if the chips were down
@@matthewarnold4557 definitely the U.S could produce the shit out of anything but it just won't be as good as today's weapons most of which are just too specialized and complex to build.
On other thing to consider is that the UK still has overseas basing, such as in Bahrain, Belize, the Falklands Islands etc. This is something key to the decision to building the QE class with conventional power plants.
Well UK still has more bases if america gives them back after the leases are up
@LAI ZHENG YI Moe i was responding to the comment Bases in Newfoundland
Eastern side of the Bahamas
Southern coast of Jamaica
Western coast of Saint Lucia
West coast of Trinidad (Gulf of Paria)
Antigua
British Guiana (present day Guyana) within fifty miles of Georgetown
The agreement also granted the US air and naval base rights in:
The Great Sound and Castle Harbour, Bermuda
South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland
@LAI ZHENG YI Moe Who knows america might keep them when the lease is up
@@zzirSnipzz1 doesn’t the US lease an military base on an island of the Chagos archipelago?
@@pieter-bashoogsteen2283 yep they do ;) But we don't talk about that or the UN will kick up a fuss
Nicely explained.
The French governement, for the replacement of the CHarles de Gaulle, decided to invest into one giant nuclear-powered carrier. Unlike what you said at the end of the video, I think that price matters a lot. As a french myself, I would have prefered to get 2 new smaller carriers instead of one prestigious monster.
Also, if you look at how hardwares developpement and sales, you will see that price is always a strong argument for or against.
I agree. 1 big one can only be in one place at a time, and if it suffers any major breakdowns, you lose all of your force projection and strike power. 2 is the minimum, but I'd still rather have 5 or 6 65000 tonne carriers than just 2. Same with the RN with Destroyers. Currently we have 6, which really isn't enough in my opinion. I could go on.
@@vxrdrummer Well, France isn't the USA, and despite our broad maritime boarders, we haven't really any reason to spread our average-sized army across the globe.
Also, I am curious to see how modern warships would fare in real battles since... all rich countries now have anti-ship missiles, and anti-air missiles.
Warships aren't as good as they were during WW2, same for airplanes. So many deadly threats.
@@Abandon-art You still cant scan over the horizon, an E2 is considered the most valuable aircraft on a carrier cause it can scan further being higher. Also its still the same trope as WW2 you can send 10 Hornets carrying 4 anti ship missiles each or risk a destroyer. Remember they don't know where your fleet is cause they can only scan to the horizon.
@@twocansams6335 I did not mean to say that carriers+airplanes are helpless, but probably not as dominant as in WW2.
Also, these hardwares cost ridiculous amounts of money, human resources and oil. However they can be extremely effective when it comes to embargos.
The point is, a smaller aircraft carried isn't that much cheaper, but it would be significantly weaker. There's a reason why the Queen Elisabeth's are so large : size makes easier to operate and maintain the planes, and to accommodate future evolution.
The Charles de Gaulle is now considered too small : modernization is difficult, the living conditions for the crew are bad compared to modern ships of the navy, and the 4000 tonnes of radio-protection material added late in the design made it slow.
Adding a few thousand extra tons aren't that expensive, the cost of an aircraft carrier isn't in the steel.
I have known a couple of guys that were aviation mechanics on various conventional and fossil fueled US carriers in the 60s and 70s. On a conventional carrier, they spent a lot of time and effort cleaning what was basically soot from the stacks off of the air wing aircraft. But the soot also got into systems like avionics and environmental systems which had to be pulled from the aircraft, disassembled, cleaned, and put back in.
The Forrestals had oil-fired boilers. I guess the modern Diesel engines and gas turbines don't produce so much pollution.
5:20 my god, the B-1 Lancer is such a stunningly beautiful aircraft.
You should see the Tu-160 Blackjack. A bigger Russian version of the B-1 but can carry more ordnance than the B-52 and is faster.
@@xboxgorgo18 Everything the russians do is better.
@@alanwatts8239 Thank you Komrade
@@thesovietduck2121 did i earn vodka now?
@@alanwatts8239 Not true in every case, but the Russians do create some interesting and innovative systems all the same. I think we in the West underestimate their capabilities at our peril - and those in the military who’ve had to deal with their world-leading electronic warfare systems know how hard a time they can cause our own systems (although there are ways to limit the damage and to counteract those systems).
On my 07 cruise on the USS John C Stennis we met up with the Charles De Gaulle in the Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf) and we got to fly over there on a Helo to do an exchange thing. We sent airframes shops to check out the Charles De Gaulle and they sent shops to check out our shops on the Stennis.. It was pretty cool. Until we realize they kept alcohol on their ship for all of their shipmates. Everyone had a limit, well except the officers. But either way, there’s NO alcohol on an American ship. We don’t get beer rations like many other Navies. Heck whenever there was a large foreign ally ship nearby that had a bar or whatnot, our pilots would fly over there on a HELO since they could fly operations no matter where we were at. They would go over there to drink and when you haven’t drank anything for months, they would come back and you could smell it on them even if they drank hours before. Only the American Navy is the only one who doesn’t have regular alcohol rations. (Not counting Beer Days). As that isn’t significant or frequent enough to be considered. As you only get a beer day if a ship reaches 72 days at sea with no sign of porting for at least a half month. So usually you’d see one around every 87 days. I been on 4 cruises and I have only seen 1 beer day. As we pulled in every month and a half. So whenever there was a French or Australian ship nearby, the higher up pilots would fly over for a night of drinking. And they say the separation of the classes is dead! LMAO
Fact is, in a real life war, every ounce of fuel is worth it's weight in gold. Wars are won by recources.
Yep. Nuclear carriers just having more capacity to load more aviation fuel is just enough a justification for their existence.
True, though that's too bad if your only carrier/most of your nuclear carriers are currently undergoing their 3-year long refueling phase. It's a critical tradeoff for a country like France, that possesses the only non-American nuclear carrier in the world. Obviously for something like the US Navy, it's a no brainer.
Not if you take dominance fast before using lots of resources.
Yea but in a long war a 3 year refuel will be an equally big hit
But having to refuel could cost u the war
26 yrs of service without being refueled and being ~60 bigger. That's amazing. Nuclear is the winner imo.
agreed it just isnt possible for the uk to commition a nuclear power CA
@@_HONK France can it’s just the ships based on naval doctrine, the Gerald R Ford needs its nuclear fuel swapped every 20 years and that is going to take quite a while to do, as they’ll have a refit during the refuel, the conventionally fuelled QEC doesn’t take nearly as long to fuel up and a carrier will still need a tanker not far away anyway because of the flight wing
did you watch the video? 😂
@@MrSouter2 he obviously did
@@doubledekercouch the new Ford class reactors are supposed to be able to last the 50 lifespan of the ship without needing to refuel.
You're the only channel that has interesting navy and warship stuff
Any submarine captain:
“That’s a pretty target you’ve got there. It would be a shame if... something was to happen to it.”
Any counter submarine captain:
"The turns have tabled in my favor"
@@neoginseng436 That’s exactly why submarines are where the real action happens. Sea control and sea denial are these days won and lost below the surface.
@@feliscorax agreed bruh
Bruh that really means a big diving steel sausage in the water can twist the plot XD.
@@feliscorax agreed but one of the main reasons for a navy is to support land units and operating strike forces, an aircraft carrier is only designed as an airport so that planes can access areas far from a countrys shores
Few points missed or not covered in enough detail, IMO. 1) Capacity and expertise in nuclear reactor design. UK's has diminished. We would need to bring in people from France and the USA to help. That would be very expensive and time consuming. 2) Availability of bases in the UK that will support nuclear vessels. 3) Availability of international ports that will tolerate nuclear powered vessels. 4) Decommissioning. It was touched on but under-played IMO. UK has lots of Nuclear submarines waiting for decommissioning, for example, and USA and Russia have similar problems. A conventional fueled vessel is still difficult to decommission due to tough environmental rules, but much easier than nuclear.
Rolls Royce build reactors. Don’t need America or France
It doesn’t matter if international ports tolerate them or not. Docking makes them sitting ducks, so on mission, they keep themselves moving to avoid subs by simply being faster. Their tenders speed ahead to allied ports to grab supplies, then meet up and transfer, rather than risk these massive icons of power becoming an easy target.
@@ffrederickskitty214 Honestly R&R is just based, turbines to reactors they build it all
@@souledgar Yes, it does. Do your ships in the US only ever dock in the US? Or do they actually visit friendly ports? Ever? Certainly the RN makes a big deal of visiting it's friends and allies from time to time.
@@ffrederickskitty214 Okay, if you say so.
Just ordered my nuclear aircraft carrier on Aliexpress. Thanks for the explanation brother 😊
Thank you for making an unbiased video. A lot of video's seem to go in with an aim to shit on the UK in some way. It's nice to see balanced commentary on these topics. :)
Or shit on the USA. I agree you were very neutral and remained fact focused. Great job!
@@John_Be Thank you. We try :-P
Appreciate the comment :-)
@@John_Be lmao you HAD to come in here and play victim huh, "USA gets shit on too!!"
@@lostinthewoods3918 ok
I'm an analytics type of guy. Questions need facts to be answered. Accordingly, you've done your homework and receive an A+. 😁
We are glad your sentence ended the way it did! 😉
We are firm believers that quality work attracts quality audience.
@@NotWhatYouThink you didn't mention the fact that they cant really make more because they are busy making nuclear subs
@@flatmarssociety5707 That is assuming the United States isn't relying on any of its allies for its production needs...
I should point out a key fact that was missed is the potential for the directed energy weapons modernization, which would be easily applied with such a surplus of energy of a nuclear power plant... The Queen Elizabeth would likely require battery banks to necessitate such an upgrade, Granting her a limited supply of shots
@@victorianavaughan9746 yea but energy weapons even though it was mentioned here are ineffective or not viable for the most part.. yea some laser weapons are sort of developed on very limited warships but rail guns are the biggest energy weapon every American believes is a viable thing they have which is completely untrue. They are self destructing unreliable technology not implemented... comparing another armies ships capabilities to the biggest tax payers wasting military in the world I’m know capabilities is dumb and useless because just because they can and did doesn’t always mean it’s worth it or viable
@@henrymorrey4150.. Yes as it stands Our current "take" on the Weapon system Leaves much to be desired...yet with it in working order, (even with The high maintenance and parts replacement) it offers a 1shot kill of a conning tower An estimated barrage for a total kill Of the Russian battle cruisers.. none the less Athena Has performed adequately In a defensive capacity, granting a cheap, Reliable and Unrelenting air defence system... yet with a superior range then the valcon cannons.. This is an improvement on the current system or is currently the rail gun does not offer much of an improvement of the antiship missile or cruise missile equivalency.
Good to talk with someone who knows their stuff
This video was very helpful. I can now go on a trip from Portsmouth to Rio De Janeiro and back with my diesel powered aircraft carrier!
I like how you do pros and cons of both, and the number of factors considered. not just assuming one is better than the other.
Glad you found the video balanced :-P
Exactly. The one you need is better than the one you don’t.
Aside from the cost there are distinct operational advantages to the large American nuclear carriers. The lack of large fuel tanks means there is more room for jet fuel, munitions and personnel. This means that they can have a higher operational tempo, fly more sorties before needing to take on jet fuel and replenish armaments. Coupled with the large numbers of aircraft that they can carry this means a bigger punch and the ability to deliver more ordnance and strike more targets. It also means that the carriers can reach their destinations more quickly in the event of a war or a crisis. The top speed of the US nuclear carriers is classified but it is likely higher than conventional carriers. Plus the maximum range of a conventional carrier is predicated on it travelling at an economical cruising speed which is well below its maximum speed whereas a nuclear carrier's range is not under a similar constraint. There may also be a need to operate at above the max endurance cruise speed in order to generate sufficient wind speed over the flight deck to launch aircraft. Finally, the ability of the nuclear power plants to generate large amounts of electrical power means that US carriers can effectively operate the new electromagnetic catapults and future energy weapons such as lasers.
Ok, your carrier can go around the Horn of Africa, whilst ours goes through the Suez Canal. Let's race to the Straights of Hormuz. Oh, and good luck with those future weapons! Here any day now...
You're telling me that you save space despite the:
Nuclear radiation shields
Extra armour for the engines
Water desalination plant
Really bro? You talk about em catapult launchers but the QE class can be fitted with them later if nessasary and as for the energy weapons, they're still not viable enough to be put on the Ford class.
Need I remind you that the ford class is 67% larger then the QE class? The QE class doesn't need Nuclear power because it isn't meant to operate in the Pacific and making it Nuclear would be too costly when the UK is planning to increase its naval power.
Yes I watched the video too
OK bud, you go have fun with your one little token carrier.
BTW no need to race when we got a carrier in both ports 🤣😅
@@neilgriffiths6427 You need to go through the Suez canal but we have 3 aircraft carriers that are 3 times bigger on either side of Africa.
4kg... imagine holding 4 packs of sugar. That's enough fuel for an entire aircraft carrier to move at full thrust for an entire week! Also, refuel after 20 years... for 4 years? Imagine the complexity of these systems!! That is insane!!! Loved this video, keep it up!
Next solar powered then a wind powered, and back to sails it is then
Huh?
Why wind power?
Pssst, sails are wind powered
Sails on an aircraft carrier would be interesting 🤣
Why go backwards? When we can go forward.
It was very informative you really do deserve more views.
Love when a channel proposes a question, wastes at least 10 minutes of my time, and ends on the complete copout of “it depends”, thanks dude, I totally couldn’t fathom the idea that it depends on the military force you want.
Super nice video dude, I thought this was a bigger channel until I look at the 1k views lol
Thanks very much!
Generate quality content and you will attract quality audience ;-)
@@NotWhatYouThink Can't argue with that logic
6:14 That $2.6 billion figure you nonchalantly put out there. Is not just for refueling the nuclear power plants. But a major overhaul of the ship itself too. So that figure was quite literally comparing apples to oranges. As you did not mention any kind of overhaul figures for a diesel ship at the same time frame of 20 to 25 years in age.
Hi Robert, yes that figure was for “refuelling and complex overhaul” as we mentioned in the video at 6:06.
We were talking about how refuelling conventional carriers is more time-consuming compared to nuclear carriers, but that the convenience of not having to refuel a nuclear carrier for a long time comes at a cost. Refuelling and Overhaul (ROH) of a nuclear carrier is not something that we could split into two, as it is practically performed as one procedure (and yes, it includes other modernization work). We were not suggesting that the $2.6 billion figure is too high (or too low), but rather it just is.
I’ve always said our military (US) doesn’t want to be caught with their pants down again. WW2 changed a lot for the US military. We went from one of the smallest to the largest. Essentially, these carriers could move constantly. Wouldn’t have to be docked. Wouldn’t be at as much risk
Pre WW2 we were NOT the one of the smallest. We were tied for the largest from the end of WWI,.
@@grathian Before hostilities broke out, the US had a fairly small land army of just 190,000 enlisted men. That included the air force too as the USAF didn't even exist at that point. It was part of the army. Britain had the largest Navy up until about midway through WW2.
@@BedtimeStoriesChannel unexpected crossover
Currently China has overtaken the US in number of ships overall. The big difference is in the size, complexity and effectiveness of the ships concerned, and the infrastructure behind them. Here the US is the clear winner!
I was on a nuclear carrier in the 90's and some buddies came over from the the USS America which was diesel, they complained that diesel fumes were everywhere, food, water, and the air. They enjoyed the ability not to have that on the nuclear carrier. And the short take-off and especially the vertical take-offs burn more fuel than being catted.
I was on a nuclear carrier and you could often taste JP5 in the water.
@Scott Cole So what were the Kitty Hawk class ran by? The Enterprise, Nimitz class, and the Ford class are nukes. Hence the CVN vs the CV for shorthand CVN-65 stands for Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier Enterprise and CV-66 was Carrier America.
Which will be a better value for money? Exactly the question I'm asking as I'm shopping for one at the moment!
Nice video nonetheless 👍
Depends--lots of long trips, or daily commute/errands around the neighborhood?
same. New to the market of aircraft carriers. Please give us some tips. 🙏
@@virusj216 I personally recommend to start with a small Diesel once you get the hang of it then scale up
When scaling you can go for numbers or size. If you go for size only try nuclear if you already have experience with simillar machinery.
I saw a sale on the nuclear one on best buy on black Friday .
But I think it's better you contact your insurance company again
I would like to get my mechanic to check it out before I buy. How long do typical test drives last and will the dealer let me take it out alone?
Fantastic Summary - Well done!
You mentioned the few Russian navy nuclear accidents, but not accidents related to diesel (or other marine fuels)
One other aspect said to have been a contributory factor in the QE class being non-nuclear is the increasing dearth (in the West) of appropriately trained _nuclear technicians_ in the military capable of properly maintaining a nuclear reactor.
Indeed, France’s ill-fated Charles De Gaulle carrier has apparently suffered from this expertise shortfall, amongst an array of other embarrassing maintenance/reliability issues that has seen the ship in dock more than it has at sea!
There are clear advantages to nuclear power of course but I can understand why diesel was chosen by the Royal Navy.
Same. Both nations chose what makes sense for them. The USA has all the money in the world and have the duties of a superpower to undertake. Therefore the immense power of Nuclear despite its higher costs makes sense m. Meanwhile the QE is far simpler and smaller making it perfect for what England needs which is a ship which is built for local power projection but can go long range. Same thing with their plane loadouts
Wow!! Love this channel just fascinated by information that I did not know!! awesome to watch!!!
Even civilian diesel vessels with any kind of a steam system (most have exhaust gas boilers for example) have some form of a desalinisation plant in them though.
I'm with team nuclear.
That 1 million gallons of fuel takes time to refine and frankly, it could be used elsewhere. It would be great if we could have nuclear powered aircraft, tanks and trucks etc but its not very practical whereas on a ship, it works well with proper training and maintenance.
I think the us tried building a nuclear powerd flying aircraft carrier or something like that, i belive it was called the CL-001 maby
The USA has the Nevada desert to go bury decommissioned nuclear waste , and what the hell would the UK do with similar waste? I suspect the French may try to dump it in Mali or Niger or something like that.
In short if the Uk can only afford to build six destroyers and six attack submarines & can’t even have a full complement of aircraft on their two carriers, then they can’t certainly afford nuclear carriers. Just two expensive for the shrinking budgets 😊
A big reason for the $2.6 billion for the Roosevelt refueling is because the overhaul likely included significant upgrades.
I love to watch this video very much! It isn't only to increase our knowledge but we come to know more the differences between the two gigantic supper carriers that surely 'they' the millitary will never let us know; and much of it we don't know!
Thanks for the show!
Big difference is the aircraft launch system. With catapult systems, the load can be heavier then the ramp (limited to aircraft performance specifications) systems
You can still use catapults on diesel carriers they just chose to go with a ramp for whatever reason
Agree, to an extent - but the electromagnetic systems on the Ford still not working 100% - reliability?
It's called "we don't have a pot to piss in". A CATOBAR system would have added a billion or more to the carrier's price.
As for the Ford's Cats not being operational it is very rare for a new system to work right out of the box. You are talking about one of the eleven carriers we operate.
I know, "our modern carrier can out sortie those old vessels". Actually, no it can't the QE is rated for 75 sorties a day with a theoretical one time maximum of 110 a day (people have to sleep). The Nimitz flew 975 fixed wing war time sorties over four days in July of 1997. (It pays to have a bigger crew and Cats).
@@neilgriffiths6427 Its a new technology, so it's going to take a while for them to get all the kinks out... and going by the numbers and fail rates of today compared to 2009, it's come a long way.
@@rburns9730 Britain could have afforded a CATOBAR carrier but successive governments have been underfunding defence for decades. That said, the QE design was almost certainly the right way to go for our needs and limitations, especially since the F-35B performs so well that it's at far less of a disadvantage than the Harrier was.
EMALS will no doubt be brilliant but any new system has issues and while that's not a problem for the US which can fall back on its older carriers that use steam catapults, the UK has no such backup.
The claim about QE having a higher sortie rate wasn't in comparison to US supercarriers with 4 catapults, it was to the CATOBAR version of the QE class design which only had a pair of them.
Easy answer, I choose the Nuclear carrier over Disseil any time.
1) you can carry more Avaition fuel
2) you can reduce the number of steam driven catapults for Electric.
3) The 2 above just saved a ton of space for, more Avation fuel, and ammo storage.
4) If you are in a full war and you lose all your support ships and you got luck to keep a full wing of planes, 50% avation fuel, and the nuclear engine, you have a chance to
A) continue the fight which is risky, and until you run low on ammo.
B) Return to a supply base which if you did use dissel fuel you would run out
C) play hide and seek until your 2nd fleet comes and supply you to continue the fight.
D) head back to base for repairs, as long as the engines are not damage, you will make it back with out the need to worry about fuel.
D1) If you did have to worry about fuel, you would have to turn back early or meet up with a supply fleet.
Diesels cheaper, so you can afford more support ships. A tide class is less than 5% the cost of QE and carries more fuel.
You arguments are about 1 to 1 but the reality is cost to cost.
The UK carrier iirc were delayed for several years due to budgetary reason. So the cost and length of time to build was greater than it should of been.
I get the feeling that nuclear has a lot more room for improvement in the future. Otherwise, I guess it's nice if your giant floating sea base doesn't get stranded when raiders sink your refueling ships, but if you just use them to defend your local sea territory, perhaps that doesn't matter.
And when raiders sink your support ships, your aircraft sit in their hangars. No way the QE's are being built for North Sea defence.
Hey, are they able to get fueled by plane like an aircraft?? ... and that would extend their range a lot.
I was having a hard time choosing between them… Thats for helping me 😌😌
Crewing levels on nuclear vs non-nuclear carriers is a big factor. The Royal Navy doesn't have sufficient nuclear-qualified engineering crew to operate even one nuclear carrier, they're all deployed on subs including the deterrent bomber fleet. I think the QE-class carriers have a ship crew (excluding air wing and embarked Marines) of 700 whereas the smaller nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle has a ship crew of 1350. The Nimitz and Ford class American carriers have ship crews in excess of 2000 each.
The wage bill difference alone over a few decades of operation will add up, never mind the recruiting, training and manning levels that need to be met to support deployments and mission operations.
good point!
The Royal Navy isn't stupid enough to sail on Nuclear reactors during warfare.
Don't think for one minute that any vessel is unsinkable nor is there any metal or alloy strong enough to protect them, Rectors. God help all on board when hit because the fleet couldn't help as poisoning would kill all.
The USA hasn't been involved in naval warfare since WW2 so don't forget the horror and reality.
The British only use Nuclear power on Subs that carry Nuclear warheads as it would game over if hit anyway
@@Then.72 US super carriers have been proven tough to sink and in 1991 the USS Wisconsin was deployed for combat in operation desert storm.
@@Doge5600 the USA hasn't been involved in Naval warfare since WW2
@@Then.72 your right
I wonder if the Nuclear factor would ever make a potential aggressor hold back an attack or pose a moral dilemma for such action. Especially if one is on your doorstep
Good point, especially considering having a carrier off your coast doesn't just mean there are bombers at the ready, but also at least 1-3 fast attack subs lurking in the depths
If it was Nato, yes, if it's US, Russia, or China, no. If war starts we don't give a darn about what is powering it, if it's a warship or a military target, it is going to the bottom.
@@Predator42ID also depends on where the thing is. Most nations wouldn't have a problem with sending one to the bottom so long as it's not near anything.
@@ezraprice6709 If you send an active nuclear reactor to the bottom of the ocean it is 'near' everything - eventually. You can't contain radiation in water. Eventually it would poison everything.
@@burlatsdemontaigne6147 nah, depends really, if it gets ripped open by a torpedo or collision and dumped into the ocean then yeah the radiation would be a problem. But if it simply sinks along with the ship to the bottom of the ocean, the reactor devices are tough and due to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean it'll probably hold. Even if it melts, it'll have to go through many layers of the ship and it'll cool a lot before sinking into the clay at the bottom of the ocean, there's plenty of naturally occurring uranium anyways, won't harm anything when it's deep inside the earth.
This channel is friggin amazing, am i right?
I’ve served on a nuke carrier with men who served on the Kennedy also. They much much preferred the Nuclear. I can tell you quality of life is far better for sailors in nuke ships.
Most of the costs in the Nuke carrier is the regulations, not the power plants or nuclear materials.
The US defense industry can’t build anything without making a bunch of defense contractors super rich.
What ships are powered by plutonium reactors? You mean U-235?
Modern engines are far smaller, cleaner and much more efficient , I suspect crew on the Kennedy would be amazed at the engine rooms in new build ships whether military or commercial. That is one area where nuclears advantage has been eroded.
@@andrewdeacon8315 not really eroded. The advantage is not carrying fuel your burning for propulsion.. so you can carry more fuel for aircraft, more welcome, produce far more electricity and still no rationing of water.
@@bret9741 eroded in the sense that with the engines being much smaller and more efficient much more space is available for aviation fuel etc , I have seen a comparison with the Kennedy and difference is very significant though I can’t remember the exact details. But yes of course nuclear is still ahead in this regard.
When you actually go to war on one we will see the devastation because nothing on earth can protect anything from weaponry and the USA hasn’t seen Naval warfare since WW2
When talking about fuel usage in volume/weight, a consideration not taken into account, is the total size and weight of the powerplant and fuel source combined. Fuel tanks can be any size/shape around the ship, whereas the nuclear plant has to be installed as a primary concern and other equipment must make space for it to be so.
The reason nuclear is not widely adopted in the civilian sector is because the average civilian is quite dumb and the closest they ever got to nuclear power was watching a nuke detonate on a screen and a bunch of angry and equally ignorant protesters trying to ban anything nuclear related. As a result, there just isn't enough interest in developing the technology.
worth noting that the nuclear vessels require specialist shipyards for repair/maintenance whereas the conventionally powered British vessel could be repaired anywhere... an important operational consideration
Excellent video and discussion - I was also wondering about the manpower levels for each carrier. I had heard there was more automation on the Queen Elizabeth class ship meaning much less manpower requirement.
Tony APA yes only needs 1.600 crew for QE i think.
Sorry its 1040 crew to man it and with 1,892 (all berths) passengers for QE 2. And for QE 1 1000+ crew and with 2,283 passengers. 💯❤👍🏻
Imagine they build motherships filled with drones and only with a size of a cruiser or destroyer
Very cool man! Quite informative
It truly comes down to a nation's doctrine and the nation's capabilities
Curious droid did a good video on why don’t the UK produce nuclear powered carriers. The reasons make a lot of sense especially when you have to think about decommissioning and the costs that must involve dealing with a nuclear power plant,
Very informative video, great explaination and amazing use of imagery. I personality think the age of the carrier is soon to be over, especially because russia, china and india have hypersonic missiles (that go around mach 8) that can heavily damage carriers and render them useless until they head back for repairs.
It's probably going to be some time before carriers are completely obsolete, after all, China has been trying to play catch-up in the carrier game for the last decade or two and are building a number of carriers at the moment, and India are building their first indigenous carrier. So they must see some benefit in them still. There's also countries like South Korea and Japan beginning to develop carriers now too.
One thing to bare in mind is that you still need to be able to target and accurately track a carrier in order to hit it, they're relatively fast moving ships and can operate in vast areas of ocean. You'd need a lot of satellites in low earth orbit to keep constant track of them to be able to guide a missile in, but in a future war there's a good chance those satellite systems will be targeted also.
@@Benjd0 that's indeed true, The building rates for carriers are rather high and the fact that even russia is planning to build a few new ones (project 23000e shtorm and Lamantin). But in my oppinion the age of the hypersonic missiles (that can change trajectories quiclkly and unexpectedly to avoid aa) like Zircon (or Tsirkon) for example is rather close.
You also mentionned the ability to shoot satelites down in LEO (Low Earth Orbit). There is now already an anti air missile that's currently being tested, that's expected to be capable of doing such things. It's called the S500 😄
And those are the exact reasons why the US is investing in lasers and railguns: it doesn't matter how fast your missile is if it can get shot out of the sky miles away from the target. Coincidentally, this may bring about the rebirth of big gun battleships, since that same logic can apply to aircraft as well.
@@matthewseligman5470 Time was your ally, Carriers, but now it has abandoned you, the Battleships, have returned.
Sorry had to do it.
@@matthewseligman5470 the age of star wars shall begin soon 😂
This is such an amazing channel, thanks for the videos 👏
Thats why I love youtube. Its full of shit but also full of great vids like this where you learn new things. Thank you 😊
Conventionally powered aircraft carriers are more value for money, nuclear powered are more value for power.
75% the capability of a Nimitz at a 3rd of the price and manpower.
Which 1 is really value for power?
...and that too when you are not calculating the differential in maintenance cost.
If you calculate and add that difference in maintenance cost to the construction cost then in the lifecycle cost of operating one Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier, you could perhaps operate five or six conventionally powered aircraft carriers. Yet, my friend, you’re calculating only value for money. You’re not thinking about value for power. The value for power lies in those extra 25% tricks that a nuclear powered carrier can perform but even 5 conventionally powered carriers combined together can’t.
To calculate value for power, you shall have to forget about the costs completely and compare the two classes of ships vis-a-vis each other purely on the basis of performance. There the 25% deficiency in capabilities could become a matter of life and death. To begin with, for every tonne of weight, QE Class can carry fewer aircrafts as it is forced to carry more fuel. Also, since its engines produce lesser amount of power, a STOVL type QE class carrier can carry fewer types of fighter and reconnaissance aircrafts. For example, it cannot carry fixed wing reconnaissance aircrafts like E-2 Hawkeye (operated by both types of US super carriers and also French nuclear powered carrier Charles de Gaulle), as Hawkeye cannot be launched from a QE class. So QE Class type is forced to make do with helicopters fitted with radars which have lesser speed and lesser range. Hence, the radius of awareness of QE class aircraft carriers is significantly smaller in comparison to Charles de Gaulle, Nimitz class or Ford class nuclear powered aircraft carriers. For some countries, that 25% extra capability might matter more than five times cost because it adds to its fighting power and survivability of the ship.
One nuclear powered carrier has some capabilities which two conventionally powered carriers do not. In conclusion, 75% + 75% of 2 QE class carriers is not necessarily greater than 100% of Ford Class Carrier.
In a head to head battle in an open ocean, the more powerful reconnaissance aircrafts of USS Gerald R. Ford would detect both HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales first. In a battle, the one who sees first, gets to fires first. On top of that, because catapult assisted takeoff gives extra power to the aircraft during launch, F-35 C can also take off with a bigger weapons payload than F-35 B (the variant of F-35 that can be launched from QE class carriers). And to add insult to the injury, F-35 C also has a higher range i.e. it can fly to greater distance without refuelling because F-35 B has to expend a lot of fuel in vertical landing and because of its complicated technology F-35 B is costlier than F-35C too.
In conclusion, you might produce 5 QE Class carriers in the price of one Ford class carrier but in battlefield that 25% edge in capabilities, that Ford Class has, would sink five QE class carriers every time. Hence, my friend, QE class might be more value for money, Ford Class is more value for power.
@@a.k.830 £280b extra over the lifetime of the ship, £15b a year.
We have made compromises but it's still better then the Liaoning or the Charles de Gaulle.
F35b standard weapon load will be 8 spear 3 mini cruise missiles, 2 meteor missiles, and 2 asraam missiles, this load will be able to handle most adversaries the royal navy is likely to encounter.
As for the range deficiency between the the B and C variants, I'm just waiting for a tilt rotor tanker, like the 1 the usmc are developing.
Dear @@steve-iw2bg , I agree with all you have written except that HMS Queen Elizabeth is better than French Charles de Gaulle. I would say that on some accounts it is better and on some accounts it is inferior to the French carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth has been built with newer tech and is bigger than Charles de Gaulle but CATOBAR type carriers do have some inherent advantages over STOVL type carriers, which no one can deny. On top of it, CdG has advantages of being nuclear powered.
Disclaimer- I am not disputing that Queen Elizabeth class carriers are A-class ships and the UK took the right decision by opting to make it diesel powered. I would like to add that this was rather a wise decision by HM government. Had I been the advisor to the United States Navy, I would have tried to persuade the US Navy to procure 5 nuclear powered and 15 diesel powered aircraft carriers instead of 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. After all, “Quantity has a quality of its own”.
My previous reply was only a response to your question about ‘value for power’. You can justify buying 2 Toyotas instead of a Mercedes and yet saving a lot of money, whereas a hardcore Mercedes fan would insist on buying a Mercedes only (in this analogy, France is the Mercedes fan as they have opted to make even their next carrier nuclear powered). Some desire value for money, some insist only top line product (in my words value for power) though they may not use all the features of the product. In my opinion, both sides of arguments are equally justifiable.
@@a.k.830 I'd rather have 2 diesel Toyota landcrusers over 1 V8 Mercedes M class. The power comes with having 2 over 1.
Coming as Boeing and Airbus are fielding electrically propelled planes and next carrier will have even more reserve electric power. Has the USN fishing for food on long away missions?
Grew up in Connecticut, dad was an army officer lifer and we used to go the Officer's and NCO clubs at the Groton/New London sub base. Used to be able to see the original Nautilus from the bridge as we approached. Also we lived about 5 miles from the main Combustion Engineering plant where the major assemblies of the special compact sub reactors were developed and produced. Of course in those days the nuclear navy was strictly submarine in nature. We used to joke around about our area being a priority on Russia's target list as Pratt and Whitney, Hamilton Standard and of course the enormous Colt factory were also nearby. There were Nike sites all over the place but we all know now what a joke they were. Sorry to go off topic, but give me a chance to reminisce and you are in trouble. 😉
Ahhh a fellow CT person. Yeah it’s nuts how much strategic shit exist in CT. For such a small state we punch well above our weight in terms of contribution to national defense. Also the Nautilus is a fucking rad museum
I was stationed on both types: USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). The Kennedy was the last conventional-powered carrier and the Eisenhower (nicknamed "Ike") was the third nuclear-powered carrier (after Enterprise and Nimitz).
What was it like going from a conventional to a nuclear-powered carrier? Was there anything noticeably better?
@@bananaman7433 To me, the only thing is security. Security is tighter because of the nuclear reactors. Other than that, no difference. We did the same thing on both carriers.
@@arnoldhenrywhen was you on Kennedy? I was there Dec '92 - Dec '94
@@christopherscott5652 I was onboard the Kennedy when it collided with the Belknap in 1974.
This channel is 🔥🔥
Am I missing something? Surely if the rest of the defence and support fleet are diesel powered, then the range of nuclear carriers is irrelevant. They never sail alone.
The carriers could have a range of 3 billion miles and a speed of 200 knots, they would still have to wait for the destroyers, frigates and supply ships.
Exactly 😂
i think you missed the displacement part
That said, those few refueling ships that run with the carrier group can refuel the other escorts many more times if they don't have to refill the carrier too. So the same diesel resources can be stretched a lot further, extending the range of the entire group.
0:09 *Tokyo drift starts playing*
😂
Very interesting
Good job
Nuclear is cooler, so it wins out. Even if it doesn't "pay for itself", I'm sure the R&D into improvements and whatnot is well worth it.
Both of em are extremely modern high tech badass aircraft carriers
They’ll do.
no catapult is actually is a big issue for military operations, planes can only take off half-loaded on a short runway. in a real war you'd want to send them armed to the teeth.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 you know what i mean
Very impressive and innovative useful technology video review....!
They went diesel because they can't afford nuke.
Exactly - UK could afford a single carrier with nukes. Sure it would be better then QE - but would be ONE. Having two less capable ships >> single ship.
@@EmperorLionflame like I said. Can't afford. I didn't say wasn't capable.
@@EmperorLionflame it actually does. That's one less resources the ship needs. In times of war that's a huge advantage.
Tankers are a logistical nightmare and need their own fuel, plus they're very very vulnerable to attack. I would argue that in a highly mobile war in the Pacific, you'd want fully nuclear battle groups. Not just the carriers.
In a world where you have unlimited money, that'd be nice.
Very objective and informative. I rather like this channel.
Nuclear Power is just more *Flex af*
The first QE UK carrier to be built, underwent sea trials in 2017. With the diesels and gas turbines flat out, it attained 32knots. This was verified by the AIS tracking system. The US carriers would also exceed their quoted 30 knots , easily .
It's always the same. When we brought T45 Ship 2 out of build and gave her a spanking with 52400shp being generated by the 2 WR21 GTs, we got 32.7knots as appose to the quoted 28 max. Same with T42s. We got 33 on HMs Gloucester. The Nimitz class will supposedly get 35 max chat. I'm not surprised that QE went that fast with the IEP and MT30s driving it on there, each being RESTRICTED to just 36 MWs...which is still crazy power for one gazzy. If I remember rightly, they are normally 43-45 MW in the aircraft version, so are derated quite a lot for the marine version.
@@vxrdrummer I had a very interesting conversation with the then-commander of HMS Prince of Wales about the advances that it and the F-35B brought to the Navy. He also talked about serving onboard a Type 23 frigate and mentioned the time they took part in a joint exercise in the North Sea during which they tracked USS Enterprise on radar doing 41 knots flat out. She was an unusual vessel though - the only one of her type with a longer hull (hence higher speed) than the Nimitz class and 8 reactors to provide power. I believe one of her less flattering nicknames was "The Mobile Chernobyl"
Yes, needed this to help decide which type of carrier i should get.
video: *casually mentions railguns power requirements*
me: we already have operational railguns on carriers? :O
the US navy made one spent 500 million on it the decision to scrap it and instead develop "hypervelocity projectiles" and "directed energy weapons" essentially fast shells and laser weapons
@@vitsadelhole Those still sound badass sci-fi stuff. Very promising:)
@@robertrenato are you like 5 years old?
Nuclear carriers all the way. In the event of a war, not having to rely on fuel is crucial, and then they can carry additional aircraft fuel and munitions for prolonged deployment
What about other vessels in the strike group? The carrier can’t go alone. Just wondering
@@zsqduke Not having to refuel the carrier means less reliance on other vessels, or more resources for those other vessels
@@Beari91 The other ships are mainly there to stop the carrier instantly getting obliterated by torpedoes or a missile strike. At war against any modern power, a carrier that moved beyond its strike group, is a dead carrier.
@@markusr3259 Didn't say a carrier wouldn't have escorting vessels
@@Beari91 But most those escort vessels (minus nuclear submarines) require conventional fuel. Meaning the carrier strike group is still limited by its supplies of conventional fuel.
I can watch your videos all day long you seem to like particularly the aircraft carrier subject and this is an interesting one
I'm from Portugal and i think Quenn Elizabeth is beautiful!!more beautiful than the americans!!🇵🇹🇵🇹
Love from britain mate 🇬🇧🇵🇹
No offense but the Queen Elizabeth carrier is ugly
@@Donovan333 I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
I like American Carriers more, but the queen Elisabeth doesn’t look that bad
Looks dont matter
I've made my decision. I'm going for a nuclear one.
never knew this dude actually made videos and not just shorts
1:06 " which one is better value for money" as if we are searching RUclips to find best review of Carriers😂
Got a better place? Strategic Defence Review? When did you last read one?
The issue is accessibility of petrol in times of war.
Always has reserve
@@doflamingo7973 Im sure they have, i'm also sure they have petrol extraction sites nearby the UK island. But i'm thinking of an hypothetical scenario in which UK island is under siege.
@@benoitnadeau5845 yeah nuclear power is just better. I’m every way. It is just really hard to make and expensive that’s why the UK doesn’t do it lol.
@@doflamingo7973 yeah great that will last what 1 maybe 2 years if your lucky during war time
Excellent analysis
Its just incredible that engineers got to build these big ships that are perfectly operational
Ford is having quite a number of kinks that are being worked out. Hopefully the other Fords in production don't get completed until all the bugs are worked out.
43K Thumbs Up + Mine! 👍. Thanks for the fun, informative, DVR! 🎬😎🤓🤠🙏🖖✌️
Note: You're improving! 🎉🎊
Excellent video, very interesting.
cheers!
JB
It’s not the power generation. It’s the amount of aircraft and their range that matters. Moving vertically, or a ski assisted takeoff, it takes more fuel to takeoff and land presuming there are minimal landing inaccuracies.
Can't forget that the unassisted launch means they may have to restrict payload or fuel capacity
@@Creeperownr exactly, and assuming that there is a problem, you have to jettison most of your payload because the VTOL mode doesn't have as much thrust
@@TheWizardGamez research dummy VTOL can land with all weapons and fuel where as catobar aircraft have to dump due to the risk of explosion