Very interesting, and informative. It's been a long road for you Great Britons returning to a great power projecting stabilizing force of the high seas, but but your star is in ascension once more! Cheers from your US cousins across the pond, and have a happy prosperous new year!
Like Nathalie Imbruglia, I'm torn [about these carriers]. On the one hand, compared to anything we've had in the last 50 years, these carriers will be a big improvement and there are some genuinely good, novel features like the IEP and the split islands... On the other hand, as an aerospace engineer I see these carriers as rather inefficient designs, and the planes they're restricted to use being very compromised by the STOVL constraint. 36 jets (40 total aircraft) is not a lot for a ship of 65,000 tonnes. And I see this as a result of all the penny-pinching and changing governmental decisions throughout the project. I really don't understand how the government can spend nearly £8 billion EACH on the new dreadnought class, but baulk at £3 or 4 billion for a carrier. If they can find £100 billion to build a train track, surely they could have found a "little" more to build the "Alpha" design, or better go CATOBAR. I reckon if they'd always planned for a CATOBAR carrier, they'd have a more optimised design, they wouldn't have wasted money developing 2 different types of carrier and making sure the final one was compatible with both, they might have even persuaded France to remain in the project to share some of the costs (despite no Nuclear power, just include them in the Tide class program too... you'd have thought they'd learned their lesson after Charles de Gaulle...). The aircraft would also be a little bit cheaper, more capable and more varied as well. EMALS would have been an issue though I don't doubt that they will get worked out and the result will be far better than steam ones.
@Drew Peacock It got dropped in favour of the "safe bet" EMALS which the US was pretty much financing solo... Then shortly after that, the requirement for a catapult was dropped completely when the government made another U-turn (do 2 U-turns equal a round-a-bout?) Well, there are 3 main options for carrier launch and recovery: CATOBAR, STOVL and STOBAR. I think STOVL is better than STOBAR (as used on the Russian (and I think Chinese) carriers), as that is really the worse of all worlds. STOVL has some advantages in terms of space requirements (you can fit more aircraft onboard) and operations in bad weather over conventional CATOBAR aircraft and cost of the ships (so you can buy more aircraft than you would otherwise be able to afford). So depending on how you want to look at it, I think STOVL is either the 2nd best, or the 2nd worst or as I prefer, the middling option for a carrier.
She can hold up to a surge capacity of 72 aircraft , so in war colours she would carry a lot more than the normal 38 ...... IFFFFFFFFFF we have the F35s to put on her .
@@louisclark6051 if that's even possible (I only found 1 vauge reference to that in official sources), then it would dramatically cut down on how many sorties can be generated over the first few days of a conflict.
The QE class is a very capable platform for the RN and very welcome by the navies of the free world. I would like to see further development of AWACS capability, COD and joint strike force participants, especially the USN.
This class is far less capable than it should have been having little or no ability to operate with USN fleet carriers or the much smaller Charles De Gaulle or even the projected new Indian fleet carriers(all of which will be able to support cross deck operations)as the QE class cannot support CATOBAR operations and are thus limited to so called second line operations such as supporting the USMC and other landing forces and ASW where air superiority has already been established by"real"carriers"for which something akin to the JMSDF Izumo class of c25,000 tons would be more useful. They are in many ways less capable than the Audacious class Ark Royal that left service in the late 1970's
@@davidmcintyre8145 While you are certainly right in many aspects it is what it is. However it is light years ahead of what was before. It is imperative that the US’ greatest ally have projection capability. My understanding is that the QE has the ability to be retrofitted with CATOBAR. We can only hope.
@@jameshunter5485 That option was taken away by the 2015 SDSR along with the distinct chance that France would buy a ship of the class as it's second carrier which would have been valuable export revenue offsetting the costs still further. These ships will likely serve in the RN for a few years and be sold as a"cost cutting measure"to the USMC for whom they are a superb fit
@@jameshunter5485 Despite their larger size the mission profile that the QE class seems best fitted for is very similar to that of the America class to transport an expeditionary force of marines far larger than the UK has been able to field for decades along with helicopters and a small force of primarily ground attack aircraft. The QE class simply do not fit the role of fleet carrier that is claimed for them which would require air superiority and anti shipping capability as well as decent AEW(not something bolted on a helicopter)in addition to being able to hit land targets from the air group
2 things... Firstly all the armour that was supposed to make these ships hard kills was deleted for budget reasons.. Secondly the lean manning like they failed with on RFA's will result in very few junior ratings to keep the ship in good nick.. so it's going to need more crew or rust away.. make the choice...
1. armour is basically irrelevant in an age where you can be hit by a hypersonic cruise missile that could be carrying a nuclear warhead your better off focusing on other methods to increase survivability such as damage control and active defence 2. Or the officers could you know get there hands dirty
Armour is not at all irelevent.... as not every hit is a hypersonic nuc tipped one.... and officers get there hands dirty.. Firstly nope.. Junior ratings only .. and secondly you are forgetting the size of this sht bucket...
@@janwitts2688 Armor is present over vital spaces but, they exists to reduce spall and in-direct damage, along with protection from secondary detonations. NO amount of armor will protect against modern warheads, whether they be nuclear, shaped charges, or pure kenetic; instead, ships have voids (spaces) built all along the hull, not only does this minimize the explosive damage from a torpedo or shaped charge warheads but, many of the spaces are the margins needed for damage and flood control. As for the minimal manning .... redundancy and available hands is all too important during combat operations and the ability of the crew to absorb losses. Never has a damage control team ever said there's too many people here.
There is no armour whatsoever.. it was deleted.. all of it.... The armour and multiple staggered compartments were modelled together to make her a hard kill.... But this was ditched for reasons... So now even an mm 38 is potentially a high level threat... Whereas with the original system older missiles and minor strikes were of little concern. ..
@@janwitts2688 Good old Tony. Wanted his big ships to swan around but didn't give a shit about the blokes who'd have to crew them. And yeah not every missile is a giant, most are not and armor is well and truly needed. Internal armor is what they would have designed in the first place and as you say deleted.
All the whining in the comments about not being catobar. Lol. It’s still the second most deadly carrier fleet in the world, second only to the US Nimitz/Ford class.
It's unlikely that the radar on the budget "Bravo" design would be a SPY/1 or anything of that ilk...Because ya know, much $$$$$$$$$... Plus being a Thales design, it would likely be one of their options, and it looks like it could be one of their APAR sets on a mast similar to those on the Iver-Huitfeldt or Sachsen classes of frigates. Else it could be a SeaMaster 400.
APAR, thats the radar i was thinking of. i thought it was a EMPAR emitter at first, but now you say that, i remember. i agree if could be one of those two. the only reason i said SPY-1 was it looks like that type of thing, 4 plannier fixed emitters.
when you make these videos do you have to be careful or run by officials so you don't inadvertently give info that shouldn't be known away? even though you do use open sources
If you fire missiles from a carrier you can't use the flight deck untill it's been checked for debris which cancels flight operations, better to leave defence to the escorts.
@@steve-iw2bg Fine but why do the French, Italians and the Americans( US ) have these defensive missiles, sure I do see the problem as in the carrier could conceivably shoot down its own aircraft but if the others can have missiles...?
The quick answer is budget. The more accurate answer is, your air wing and escorts will handle the defense. The reality is, QE needs more robust organic defense system. US carriers not only have Phalanx but, ESSM and RAM along with SLQ-32 and Nixie. Not having a missile defense system citing aircraft safety concerns is flippant answer a muppet likely tossed out. During combat operations, if a vampire breaks through, the ship isn't going to stop air operations while the defense system does its thing and then a clean up crew comes out.
The idea that the Labour Party had anything positive to do with the QE class carriers, or anything else with regard to the British Armed Forces, is simply utter nonsense.
The labour party planned this class as the significantly cheaper(over the life of the ship)CATOBAR type that would have been able to"cross deck"with allied carriers and operate F-18's,F-35C,as well as Rafales. It was the defence review of 2015 under the Tories that created this oversized helicopter carrier.
@@616CC Probably for the same reason the current crop of Tories are not planning to replace the ageing Challenger 2 tanks(perhaps with leopard 2 or Abrams)but instead to scrap all UK armoured vehicles,cost cutting though in the case of the carriers that failed in a way familiar to any student of UK defence procurement where cost and time overruns are ubiquitous. Trying to do things on the cheap inevitably costs more and in the case of defence it can cost lives as in the case if the type 21 frigate and the type 42 destroyer both of which were"affordable" but less capable than what were actually needed(Type 82 or type 43 and Type22)
Why is it that only the U.S. carriers use a catapult system to launch aircraft ? Are Harriers or F-35s the only aircraft that Great Britain flies off of a carreier?
test have shown that we can fly more sorties via vtol than with catapult. The catapult also uses a lot of space, for the storage and creation of the steam, more thing s to go wrong. there newest American carrier now uses electronic launch system. A side note, while a nuclear ship may sail nonstop for a few years, it still needs to take on jet fuel as it is limited ( to about a weeks worth I believe, not sure exactly how much) without its air group they are just very big targets with surprisingly little ON BOARD protection, it needs to bring on food, and new crew etc... so it still sails with a support flotilla, The new Uk carriers have redundancy in everything. including propulsion systems. Jet and Diesel engines creating electric power to drive the motors..
Well, at least Thales designed it which was weak lip service to an inevitable BAE systems contract. The only company in the world to consistently go over budget and delivery dates but still be heralded as heroes. I remember the days of returning from a 10 week Submarine patrol, seeing a foreman at the Dockyard armed with his trusty book and pen booking in for refit and repairs in about an hour. Fast forward and today that equates to a plethora of meetings, project management, whizzy PowerPoints and a huge bill for the UK taxpayer. Progress?...ummm
@@fa0676 I do take your point that these are highly complex and in many cases cutting edge pieces of kit. Having said that the Germans in WW2 were churning out around 75 Subs a year. The counter argument to the current BAE systems average of 2-3 years for construction plus 1-2 years for shakedown is that they (Astute class point in case) are bleeding edge. To balance this I don't think anyone would deny the Type VII, Type IX and Type XXI where also cutting edge at the time. Of course that is an over simplified argument for brevities sake. I guess if I was top brass or a senior chap in the MOD I would be hugely concerned about the lack of choice or competition in procurement and subsequent maintenance and lifecycle provision. Choice brings competition, innovation and keeps suppliers on their toes. Lack of choice naturally breeds complacency and I believe for BAE systems means comfortable laurels to lay on.
@@fa0676 I am not entirely certain that any savings were made with the Type 45. I probably don't need to remind you of the calamitous engine problems in warmer waters that cost a lot of taxpayers money to fix. A Saudi Prince allegedly paid around a Billion by BAE to grease the cogs of a procurement decision in 2004, the civvy chaps at the serious fraud squad were told to wind their neck in allegedly at the highest level. Sales chaps in the mid 80's were paid huge commissions meaning the price of aircraft to Saudi was inflated. Again this waa investigated but I guess smoothed out with MOD chaps and BAE over 18 holes. I could give other examples that weren't so public but this is not the forum for that. We can agree to disagree and that is okay.
@@fa0676 'calamitous engine problems' meaning a total loss of power. You can go about how complex the equipment is but whatever the cause if there's a total loss of power then it is calamitous. Nothing wrong with what he said.
Because of the MOD's penny pitching the QE class is just a supper Invincible class , only fixed wing aircrafts that can opperate from the carrier's are sea harrier's and F35b's. Should of stuck with cat and trap system with angle deck. QE class needs a Hawkeye type aircraft which it was going to have before Defence review.
Official thread for Q&A for the Clear Lower Deck
How possible would it be for the class to be converted to CATOBAR, in all respects possible?
Very interesting, and informative. It's been a long road for you Great Britons returning to a great power projecting stabilizing force of the high seas, but but your star is in ascension once more! Cheers from your US cousins across the pond, and have a happy prosperous new year!
Man I never knew how much i wished the RN F35 had pale blue colour
At least red and blue roundels.
Like Nathalie Imbruglia, I'm torn [about these carriers]. On the one hand, compared to anything we've had in the last 50 years, these carriers will be a big improvement and there are some genuinely good, novel features like the IEP and the split islands...
On the other hand, as an aerospace engineer I see these carriers as rather inefficient designs, and the planes they're restricted to use being very compromised by the STOVL constraint.
36 jets (40 total aircraft) is not a lot for a ship of 65,000 tonnes. And I see this as a result of all the penny-pinching and changing governmental decisions throughout the project. I really don't understand how the government can spend nearly £8 billion EACH on the new dreadnought class, but baulk at £3 or 4 billion for a carrier. If they can find £100 billion to build a train track, surely they could have found a "little" more to build the "Alpha" design, or better go CATOBAR.
I reckon if they'd always planned for a CATOBAR carrier, they'd have a more optimised design, they wouldn't have wasted money developing 2 different types of carrier and making sure the final one was compatible with both, they might have even persuaded France to remain in the project to share some of the costs (despite no Nuclear power, just include them in the Tide class program too... you'd have thought they'd learned their lesson after Charles de Gaulle...). The aircraft would also be a little bit cheaper, more capable and more varied as well. EMALS would have been an issue though I don't doubt that they will get worked out and the result will be far better than steam ones.
@Drew Peacock It got dropped in favour of the "safe bet" EMALS which the US was pretty much financing solo... Then shortly after that, the requirement for a catapult was dropped completely when the government made another U-turn (do 2 U-turns equal a round-a-bout?)
Well, there are 3 main options for carrier launch and recovery: CATOBAR, STOVL and STOBAR. I think STOVL is better than STOBAR (as used on the Russian (and I think Chinese) carriers), as that is really the worse of all worlds.
STOVL has some advantages in terms of space requirements (you can fit more aircraft onboard) and operations in bad weather over conventional CATOBAR aircraft and cost of the ships (so you can buy more aircraft than you would otherwise be able to afford).
So depending on how you want to look at it, I think STOVL is either the 2nd best, or the 2nd worst or as I prefer, the middling option for a carrier.
She can hold up to a surge capacity of 72 aircraft , so in war colours she would carry a lot more than the normal 38 ...... IFFFFFFFFFF we have the F35s to put on her .
@@louisclark6051 if that's even possible (I only found 1 vauge reference to that in official sources), then it would dramatically cut down on how many sorties can be generated over the first few days of a conflict.
The QE class is a very capable platform for the RN and very welcome by the navies of the free world. I would like to see further development of AWACS capability, COD and joint strike force participants, especially the USN.
This class is far less capable than it should have been having little or no ability to operate with USN fleet carriers or the much smaller Charles De Gaulle or even the projected new Indian fleet carriers(all of which will be able to support cross deck operations)as the QE class cannot support CATOBAR operations and are thus limited to so called second line operations such as supporting the USMC and other landing forces and ASW where air superiority has already been established by"real"carriers"for which something akin to the JMSDF Izumo class of c25,000 tons would be more useful. They are in many ways less capable than the Audacious class Ark Royal that left service in the late 1970's
@@davidmcintyre8145 While you are certainly right in many aspects it is what it is. However it is light years ahead of what was before. It is imperative that the US’ greatest ally have projection capability. My understanding is that the QE has the ability to be retrofitted with CATOBAR. We can only hope.
@@jameshunter5485 That option was taken away by the 2015 SDSR along with the distinct chance that France would buy a ship of the class as it's second carrier which would have been valuable export revenue offsetting the costs still further. These ships will likely serve in the RN for a few years and be sold as a"cost cutting measure"to the USMC for whom they are a superb fit
@@davidmcintyre8145 How do you think the QE class compares to the LHA America class?
@@jameshunter5485 Despite their larger size the mission profile that the QE class seems best fitted for is very similar to that of the America class to transport an expeditionary force of marines far larger than the UK has been able to field for decades along with helicopters and a small force of primarily ground attack aircraft. The QE class simply do not fit the role of fleet carrier that is claimed for them which would require air superiority and anti shipping capability as well as decent AEW(not something bolted on a helicopter)in addition to being able to hit land targets from the air group
Is careful in making sure we know where his info and media comes from. Thumbs up.
great video as always. thank you
Thanks for watching!
2 things...
Firstly all the armour that was supposed to make these ships hard kills was deleted for budget reasons..
Secondly the lean manning like they failed with on RFA's will result in very few junior ratings to keep the ship in good nick.. so it's going to need more crew or rust away.. make the choice...
1. armour is basically irrelevant in an age where you can be hit by a hypersonic cruise missile that could be carrying a nuclear warhead your better off focusing on other methods to increase survivability such as damage control and active defence
2. Or the officers could you know get there hands dirty
Armour is not at all irelevent.... as not every hit is a hypersonic nuc tipped one.... and officers get there hands dirty.. Firstly nope.. Junior ratings only .. and secondly you are forgetting the size of this sht bucket...
@@janwitts2688 Armor is present over vital spaces but, they exists to reduce spall and in-direct damage, along with protection from secondary detonations. NO amount of armor will protect against modern warheads, whether they be nuclear, shaped charges, or pure kenetic; instead, ships have voids (spaces) built all along the hull, not only does this minimize the explosive damage from a torpedo or shaped charge warheads but, many of the spaces are the margins needed for damage and flood control.
As for the minimal manning .... redundancy and available hands is all too important during combat operations and the ability of the crew to absorb losses. Never has a damage control team ever said there's too many people here.
There is no armour whatsoever.. it was deleted.. all of it....
The armour and multiple staggered compartments were modelled together to make her a hard kill....
But this was ditched for reasons...
So now even an mm 38 is potentially a high level threat...
Whereas with the original system older missiles and minor strikes were of little concern. ..
@@janwitts2688 Good old Tony. Wanted his big ships to swan around but didn't give a shit about the blokes who'd have to crew them. And yeah not every missile is a giant, most are not and armor is well and truly needed. Internal armor is what they would have designed in the first place and as you say deleted.
All the whining in the comments about not being catobar. Lol. It’s still the second most deadly carrier fleet in the world, second only to the US Nimitz/Ford class.
Interesting Video. Hope you have a nice day and a good transition into 2020.
Same to you
@@TheShipYard2 Thanks
v interesting, thanks for the video!
Glad you liked it!
In a disaster relief situation how many people could be accommodated on one of these ships if the planes were removed
The f35b operated from these carriers is more advanced than any of UK’s adversaries.
Still can't understand why they went with ski jump instead of a catapult system.
The most advanced state of the art fighter can’t launch by catapult.
@AK-ky3ou
What makes the F-35B more "State of the art" than the F-35C? Because the F-35C most definitely is launched by catapult.
And subbed.
Born in 1999 Christ I feel old
I was born in 1994
Born in '84, all you young whippersnappers!
It's unlikely that the radar on the budget "Bravo" design would be a SPY/1 or anything of that ilk...Because ya know, much $$$$$$$$$...
Plus being a Thales design, it would likely be one of their options, and it looks like it could be one of their APAR sets on a mast similar to those on the Iver-Huitfeldt or Sachsen classes of frigates. Else it could be a SeaMaster 400.
APAR, thats the radar i was thinking of. i thought it was a EMPAR emitter at first, but now you say that, i remember. i agree if could be one of those two. the only reason i said SPY-1 was it looks like that type of thing, 4 plannier fixed emitters.
@@TheShipYard2 EMPAR is the principle radar on the French/Italian Horizon class, like the cheaper alternative to SAMPSON.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 eye Ik :)
when you make these videos do you have to be careful or run by officials so you don't inadvertently give info that shouldn't be known away? even though you do use open sources
sometimes, however if its open source, its fine, as long as i dont bring things in from work then i dont get screwed
@@TheShipYard2 What work do you do?
HMS Trincomalee??
They should’ve been CATOBAR like the navy wanted them to be
Why no SeaRAM or Sea Ceptor missiles for self defense?
If you fire missiles from a carrier you can't use the flight deck untill it's been checked for debris which cancels flight operations, better to leave defence to the escorts.
@@steve-iw2bg Fine but why do the French, Italians and the Americans( US ) have these defensive missiles, sure I do see the problem as in the carrier could conceivably shoot down its own aircraft but if the others can have missiles...?
@@ernestjunior3080 just another heavy cost for not much benefit.
@@steve-iw2bg OK. Thanks.
The quick answer is budget.
The more accurate answer is, your air wing and escorts will handle the defense.
The reality is, QE needs more robust organic defense system. US carriers not only have Phalanx but, ESSM and RAM along with SLQ-32 and Nixie.
Not having a missile defense system citing aircraft safety concerns is flippant answer a muppet likely tossed out. During combat operations, if a vampire breaks through, the ship isn't going to stop air operations while the defense system does its thing and then a clean up crew comes out.
The idea that the Labour Party had anything positive to do with the QE class carriers, or anything else with regard to the British Armed Forces, is simply utter nonsense.
The Labour Party would dissolve the Navy and have fishermen defend out waters.
The labour party planned this class as the significantly cheaper(over the life of the ship)CATOBAR type that would have been able to"cross deck"with allied carriers and operate F-18's,F-35C,as well as Rafales. It was the defence review of 2015 under the Tories that created this oversized helicopter carrier.
@@davidmcintyre8145
Why tories. WHY
@@616CC Probably for the same reason the current crop of Tories are not planning to replace the ageing Challenger 2 tanks(perhaps with leopard 2 or Abrams)but instead to scrap all UK armoured vehicles,cost cutting though in the case of the carriers that failed in a way familiar to any student of UK defence procurement where cost and time overruns are ubiquitous. Trying to do things on the cheap inevitably costs more and in the case of defence it can cost lives as in the case if the type 21 frigate and the type 42 destroyer both of which were"affordable" but less capable than what were actually needed(Type 82 or type 43 and Type22)
@@davidmcintyre8145what’s going on with the challenger 3 like?
Why is it that only the U.S. carriers use a catapult system to launch aircraft ? Are Harriers or F-35s the only aircraft that Great Britain flies off of a carreier?
UK Does not fly Harriers any more has not done for quite a few years now. So currently F35 is the only option at the moment.
We still invented the catapult though, oh and the carrier 😉
The French use steamcatapult launching as well.
test have shown that we can fly more sorties via vtol than with catapult. The catapult also uses a lot of space, for the storage and creation of the steam, more thing s to go wrong. there newest American carrier now uses electronic launch system. A side note, while a nuclear ship may sail nonstop for a few years,
it still needs to take on jet fuel as it is limited ( to about a weeks worth I believe, not sure exactly how much) without its air group they are just very big targets with surprisingly little ON BOARD protection, it needs to bring on food, and new crew etc... so it still sails with a support flotilla,
The new Uk carriers have redundancy in everything. including propulsion systems. Jet and Diesel engines creating electric power to drive the motors..
@@anthonywilson4873 Yep !! It sold its remaining harrier jump-jets to the USA a few years ago !!! Big mistake !!!
Well, at least Thales designed it which was weak lip service to an inevitable BAE systems contract. The only company in the world to consistently go over budget and delivery dates but still be heralded as heroes. I remember the days of returning from a 10 week Submarine patrol, seeing a foreman at the Dockyard armed with his trusty book and pen booking in for refit and repairs in about an hour. Fast forward and today that equates to a plethora of meetings, project management, whizzy PowerPoints and a huge bill for the UK taxpayer. Progress?...ummm
@@fa0676 I do take your point that these are highly complex and in many cases cutting edge pieces of kit. Having said that the Germans in WW2 were churning out around 75 Subs a year. The counter argument to the current BAE systems average of 2-3 years for construction plus 1-2 years for shakedown is that they (Astute class point in case) are bleeding edge. To balance this I don't think anyone would deny the Type VII, Type IX and Type XXI where also cutting edge at the time. Of course that is an over simplified argument for brevities sake. I guess if I was top brass or a senior chap in the MOD I would be hugely concerned about the lack of choice or competition in procurement and subsequent maintenance and lifecycle provision. Choice brings competition, innovation and keeps suppliers on their toes. Lack of choice naturally breeds complacency and I believe for BAE systems means comfortable laurels to lay on.
@@fa0676 I am not entirely certain that any savings were made with the Type 45. I probably don't need to remind you of the calamitous engine problems in warmer waters that cost a lot of taxpayers money to fix. A Saudi Prince allegedly paid around a Billion by BAE to grease the cogs of a procurement decision in 2004, the civvy chaps at the serious fraud squad were told to wind their neck in allegedly at the highest level. Sales chaps in the mid 80's were paid huge commissions meaning the price of aircraft to Saudi was inflated. Again this waa investigated but I guess smoothed out with MOD chaps and BAE over 18 holes. I could give other examples that weren't so public but this is not the forum for that. We can agree to disagree and that is okay.
@@fa0676 Apologies, I didn't mean to inadvertently link the AY controversy with tropical water "issues" on the T45's.
@@fa0676 'calamitous engine problems' meaning a total loss of power. You can go about how complex the equipment is but whatever the cause if there's a total loss of power then it is calamitous. Nothing wrong with what he said.
I never knew there was an Alpha design, that got rejected.
😭😭😭
If build it would rival the Ford class
Because of the MOD's penny pitching the QE class is just a supper Invincible class , only fixed wing aircrafts that can opperate from the carrier's are sea harrier's and F35b's. Should of stuck with cat and trap system with angle deck. QE class needs a Hawkeye type aircraft which it was going to have before Defence review.