65,000 metric tons? Dead weight? The equivalence I believe around 80,000 GRT which commercial ships are measured in. Example the QM2 is 150,000 GRT The difference here she is very wide of course and has no upper superstructure as a cruise ship does. if it did she would probably top out around the size of QM2.
She is just an agitator with regards to the Royal Navy and RAF. She has no sense whatsoever of what this new carrier battle group will do in the future. If she doesn't like it, don't cover it. Or is this an "official" view? Congratulations to every British citizen for the courage to commit to the future. Thank you so much for your leadership. May we in the US choose to follow your lead.
She costs £3.1bn., aye??? In my humble opinion, and, take it for what it's worth from a former carrier sailor from "across The Pond," SHE'S WORTH EVERY SHILLING!!!! The British taxpayers GOT MORE THAN THEIR MONEY'S WORTH FROM HER AND, HER SISTER, HMS PRINCE of WALES!!! Just one little item of a suggestion. We have a saying, here, in American military circles. It goes something like this: "Anything that CAN happen in a combat situation WILL HAPPEN, NO MATTER HOW REMOTE!!!" I say that to say this: it might behoove those in power to SERIOUSLY CONSIDER adding 1, perhaps, 2 more to the fleet. Why??? Again, the above mentioned statement. If one or, both of these ships should sustain considerable battle damage, though I do NOT wish that on you guys/gals, to the point where they HAVE TO RETIRE FROM THE BATTLE SPACE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THE FLEET SINCE THEIR AIR COVER HAS TO LEAVE FOR MAJOR REPAIRS???? Yes. Your major Allies, France 🇫🇷 and, the United States 🇺🇸 BOTH have carriers as well. But, what if EVEN THE VAUNTED UNITED STATES NAVY IS STRETCHED THIN??? OR, THE FRENCH, WHO HAVE ONLY ONE CARRIER, THE CHARLES DeGAULLE??? HMMMMM???? Food for thought. I'm not saying start construction right away. First, consider ALL options, circumstances and, possibilities. Then, have a serious, intelligent debate on the topic; making sure you talk with those who have considerable experience in the insanity and, unpredictability of war. Then, decide for yourselves on the best course of action to take. Okay??? A couple of honorable names to be considered. Like: HMS Repulse. HMS Ark Royal. HMS Invincible. HMS Indomitable. HMS Royal Oak. HMS King George V. HMS Warspite. HMS Hood (she's a name that NEEDS to be brought back.) HMS Rodney.
I no longer feel embarrassed for the royal navy, when this ship sails alongside an American carrier, unlike the last "carriers".Plus its bigger and more modern than every other carrier except the Americans. I still think they should reject the f35b and make a carrier version of the typhoon. Other than stealth, the typhoons better than the f35 in every way.
Modern Technology,new up to Date weapon is there,anyone bring Gold,can have it.But one thing,no other Ship Capital can 'see' anything on any corner of the most trafficking,small Bay,short cut to reach to and what point is in favor for defense so to attack,like most English Capitals.This is the knowledge and who can handle,Britain leadership with their Hundreds of years build Legendary know who among their staff can lead the Campaign.They dig them out even anywhere just fogs,as well as always in London.By given 7 Republic independence,doesn't mean how far they can defense themselves,so who 'under mind' the way it is.According to World wide Data,some Countries soon,no more Border to mark on the Map.Were Ten of them on Top list,among them Australia.If anyone want to speeding the Nature of facts,may look at "who will involves".So,New Zealand where those Rich 'take Colony',they have Money to buy anything,everything,may think twice.Further more Britain just give answer at the time in need,why we take short cut to tell about.
uk submitted to usa always by their nuclear submarines and power bought to usa and can be launched only by us agreement... and aircrafcarrier build to hot f35 bought to usa without nuclear power and no catapulta.. all is signed us made aicrafcarrier not ritish except for the big show... very sad day for independant uk left nowadays... only russia france, usa are independant nuclear powers nowadays...
NEW BRITISH CARRIERS ARE CHEAPLY BUILT WITH EVERY POSSIBLE CORNER BEING CUT NEW BRITISH CARRIERS ONLY HAVE TWO INCH THICK HULLS!!! BRITAIN NEW CARRIERS WOULD SINK FASTER THAN THE HOOD!!! I have followed the construction of Britain's new carriers and paid close attention to the welding of each section and from that point you could see the bottom of each hull section and each wall section is only two inches thick. This is a capital ship with paper thin hull that cannot stand up to heavy combat. Here are three videos below that will give you a close up look at the hull sections of both ships and their hulls are so thin they could not stand up to heavy firepower. You have to ask yourself why would the British build two capital ships with paper thin hulls. It bothers me the British did not cover the ship with tarps when welding the sections together. I am sure the Chinese and Russians notice how thin the hulls are. The British have a reputation for cutting corners but this is ridiculous and it' obvious these two ships would sink just as fast as the Hood. Now we know why these new aircraft carriers do no have nuclear power and that's because the super structure is identical and cannot support the reinforcing and damaged to the ship which would leak and spread radiation causing an ecological catastrophe in the geographical areas of combat in the lower engine compartments. I'd like your opinion as to why these ship hulls would not be able to withstand heavy combat. ruclips.net/video/syr_X1MQdaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/gC3MpSFjIzI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8RIW6enRBXI/видео.html
You have literally made a comment with no understanding of modern shipbuilding. Modern ships are not designed to trade damage, they are designed to not be detected whilst detecting the enemy and sinking them before the enemy know what hit them. If the ship is spotted then it uses its defence systems to knock down aircraft or missiles. Your view on armour for war ships has been outdated since the second world war. No amount of armour will protect a ship from a missile or a torpedo for that matter. If you don't have a clue about a subject then don't make statements about it as if you have any knowledge, if you want to know then ask questions. They do not have nuclear propulsion because it was deemed too expensive, there are a lack of engineers and lack of places to build the reactors as the subs are already taking the capacity for the current reactors. The UK has had nuclear reactors on subs since the 60's so that undermines your argument straight away.
In order to be able to generate the enormous amounts of power required to operate the types of advanced radars and air defences that are needed to be able to compete in 21st century naval conflicts, all aircraft carriers should be nuclear powered... and also should be capable of deploying fixed-wing airborne early warning aircraft- which these two ships can not.... because they don't have aircraft-launch catapults. The Royal Navy and the UK need warships that the country can legitimately brag about, but, unfortunately, it's too late to redesign and build these two carriers again...
We are a nation that built the first aircraft carriers we have a history of ship building second to none and you some how think you are better than that. Pull your head out of your arse.
A beautiful ship, excellence of British engineering. The guys and gals from Portsmouth to Rosyth, you did hell of a job.
just can't wait to go back home from Canada to see the new carrier
She's in service today 2019 She servicing the US Marines with flight training.
we built plenty of navy ships in walker naval yard
Its gigantic.
Good job!! from Texas..
I'd expect her to arrive at HMNB Portsmouth. I'd be really impressed if she arrived at Denver.
beauitful aircraft carrier UNITED KINGDOM!!!.
Thank the Lord for the ship Queen Elizabeth, Thank God for Allies.At the Cross ✝️
Beautiful Ship. May god follow her were ever she sails.
65,000 metric tons? Dead weight? The equivalence I believe around 80,000 GRT which commercial ships are measured in. Example the QM2 is 150,000 GRT The difference here she is very wide of course and has no upper superstructure as a cruise ship does. if it did she would probably top out around the size of QM2.
She weighs 72,000 tons
Make wall
concrete with
shipes and gun
and aircraft
and machines army gun
around the
UK and
WORLD .
A fighting city of steel
She is just an agitator with regards to the Royal Navy and RAF. She has no sense whatsoever of what this new carrier battle group will do in the future. If she doesn't like it, don't cover it. Or is this an "official" view? Congratulations to every British citizen for the courage to commit to the future. Thank you so much for your leadership. May we in the US choose to follow your lead.
ruclips.net/video/NtrQDe1bJE4/видео.html
Really cool but why did they put that funny looking thing on the front.
She costs £3.1bn., aye??? In my humble opinion, and, take it for what it's worth from a former carrier sailor from "across The Pond," SHE'S WORTH EVERY SHILLING!!!! The British taxpayers GOT MORE THAN THEIR MONEY'S WORTH FROM HER AND, HER SISTER, HMS PRINCE of WALES!!! Just one little item of a suggestion. We have a saying, here, in American military circles. It goes something like this: "Anything that CAN happen in a combat situation WILL HAPPEN, NO MATTER HOW REMOTE!!!"
I say that to say this: it might behoove those in power to SERIOUSLY CONSIDER adding 1, perhaps, 2 more to the fleet.
Why??? Again, the above mentioned statement. If one or, both of these ships should sustain considerable battle damage, though I do NOT wish that on you guys/gals, to the point where they HAVE TO RETIRE FROM THE BATTLE SPACE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THE FLEET SINCE THEIR AIR COVER HAS TO LEAVE FOR MAJOR REPAIRS???? Yes. Your major Allies, France 🇫🇷 and, the United States 🇺🇸 BOTH have carriers as well. But, what if EVEN THE VAUNTED UNITED STATES NAVY IS STRETCHED THIN??? OR, THE FRENCH, WHO HAVE ONLY ONE CARRIER, THE CHARLES DeGAULLE??? HMMMMM????
Food for thought. I'm not saying start construction right away. First, consider ALL options, circumstances and, possibilities. Then, have a serious, intelligent debate on the topic; making sure you talk with those who have considerable experience in the insanity and, unpredictability of war. Then, decide for yourselves on the best course of action to take. Okay???
A couple of honorable names to be considered.
Like:
HMS Repulse.
HMS Ark Royal.
HMS Invincible.
HMS Indomitable.
HMS Royal Oak.
HMS King George V.
HMS Warspite.
HMS Hood (she's a name that NEEDS to be brought back.)
HMS Rodney.
ลานบิน
Speculation: Will L Car tr onto U E by . Op G. What do you think of Nasr? L or
Welcome back to the big leagues Brits.
An
Will the F35s be ready?
A great video until Teresa May came on👎
I no longer feel embarrassed for the royal navy, when this ship sails alongside an American carrier, unlike the last "carriers".Plus its bigger and more modern than every other carrier except the Americans.
I still think they should reject the f35b and make a carrier version of the typhoon. Other than stealth, the typhoons better than the f35 in every way.
the UK and it's "you could fit"... "x amount of football pitches" or "x amount of london buses", well OK it's x amount of minis now... ugh...
Modern Technology,new up to Date weapon is there,anyone bring Gold,can have it.But one thing,no other Ship Capital can 'see' anything on any corner of the most trafficking,small Bay,short cut to reach to and what point is in favor for defense so to attack,like most English Capitals.This is the knowledge and who can handle,Britain leadership with their Hundreds of years build Legendary know who among their staff can lead the Campaign.They dig them out even anywhere just fogs,as well as always in London.By given 7 Republic independence,doesn't mean how far they can defense themselves,so who 'under mind' the way it is.According to World wide Data,some Countries soon,no more Border to mark on the Map.Were Ten of them on Top list,among them Australia.If anyone want to speeding the Nature of facts,may look at "who will involves".So,New Zealand where those Rich 'take Colony',they have Money to buy anything,everything,may think twice.Further more Britain just give answer at the time in need,why we take short cut to tell about.
congrats but US carriers is top dog
Yes agree by far. We had our time in the past.
uk submitted to usa always by their nuclear submarines and power bought to usa and can be launched only by us agreement... and aircrafcarrier build to hot f35 bought to usa without nuclear power and no catapulta.. all is signed us made aicrafcarrier not ritish except for the big show... very sad day for independant uk left nowadays... only russia france, usa are independant nuclear powers nowadays...
The UK designs, builds and operates their own nuclear subs.
You sir are a thick twat. Chinese by any chance. Or Russian.
your English is crap,go back to school.
NEW BRITISH CARRIERS ARE CHEAPLY BUILT WITH EVERY POSSIBLE CORNER BEING CUT NEW BRITISH CARRIERS ONLY HAVE TWO INCH THICK HULLS!!! BRITAIN NEW CARRIERS WOULD SINK FASTER THAN THE HOOD!!!
I have followed the construction of Britain's new carriers and paid close attention to the welding of each section and from that point you could see the bottom of each hull section and each wall section is only two inches thick. This is a capital ship with paper thin hull that cannot stand up to heavy combat. Here are three videos below that will give you a close up look at the hull sections of both ships and their hulls are so thin they could not stand up to heavy firepower. You have to ask yourself why would the British build two capital ships with paper thin hulls. It bothers me the British did not cover the ship with tarps when welding the sections together. I am sure the Chinese and Russians notice how thin the hulls are. The British have a reputation for cutting corners but this is ridiculous and it' obvious these two ships would sink just as fast as the Hood. Now we know why these new aircraft carriers do no have nuclear power and that's because the super structure is identical and cannot support the reinforcing and damaged to the ship which would leak and spread radiation causing an ecological catastrophe in the geographical areas of combat in the lower engine compartments. I'd like your opinion as to why these ship hulls would not be able to withstand heavy combat. ruclips.net/video/syr_X1MQdaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/gC3MpSFjIzI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8RIW6enRBXI/видео.html
You have literally made a comment with no understanding of modern shipbuilding. Modern ships are not designed to trade damage, they are designed to not be detected whilst detecting the enemy and sinking them before the enemy know what hit them. If the ship is spotted then it uses its defence systems to knock down aircraft or missiles. Your view on armour for war ships has been outdated since the second world war. No amount of armour will protect a ship from a missile or a torpedo for that matter.
If you don't have a clue about a subject then don't make statements about it as if you have any knowledge, if you want to know then ask questions.
They do not have nuclear propulsion because it was deemed too expensive, there are a lack of engineers and lack of places to build the reactors as the subs are already taking the capacity for the current reactors.
The UK has had nuclear reactors on subs since the 60's so that undermines your argument straight away.
In order to be able to generate the enormous amounts of power required to operate the types of advanced radars and air defences that are needed to be able to compete in 21st century naval conflicts, all aircraft carriers should be nuclear powered... and also should be capable of deploying fixed-wing airborne early warning aircraft- which these two ships can not.... because they don't have aircraft-launch catapults. The Royal Navy and the UK need warships that the country can legitimately brag about, but, unfortunately, it's too late to redesign and build these two carriers again...
We are a nation that built the first aircraft carriers we have a history of ship building second to none and you some how think you are better than that. Pull your head out of your arse.
that is your opinion but you are wrong.@@MrRoderickVLouis