Check out Paperlike at paperlike.com/megaprojects. Thank you Paperlike for sponsoring this video.

My dad worked on the original plan for the HMS Queen Elizabeth. At that point, it was nuclear-powered and had catapults. It was advised to use steam catapults from the US Navy, as the electromagnetic ones weren't working properly yet. Then, it was deemed too expensive, and you got this

Shall I cheer you up with stories of Canadian military procurement?

I think that you hit the nail on the head with the comment about the "interesting" way that the economy was managed. The UK once led the world in shipbuilding, yet this is just one of the many British industries that have been sacrificed under this incompetent, dogmatic regime of bankers and lawyers who have forgotten that in order to spend money, one has to earn it. The London Establishment are more concerned with honours for cash than actually being honourable. Guy Fawkes- Where are you now that we actually need you?

Normally really good content but today it’s just a daily mail commenter esc top trump stats understanding of the carriers 1) The carriers are not nuclear for a few reasons. Cost being an obvious one but also HMNB Portsmouth is not a nuclear port and can’t be due to its proximity to the built up Portsmouth area. This means the carriers would have to go to either HMNB Clyde which does not have the infrastructure to support 2 large ships or HMNB Devonport which the carriers can enter due to the narrow width of the port. 2. No carrier needs defensive weapons. Carriers travel in massive task groups and if all of those ships are gone and all of the air wing are gone and it’s a carrier on its own firing defensive missiles then there is a very high chance those missiles won’t do a lot and the carrier will still be lost. 3. The carriers are able to be fitted with cats and traps if required however as of right now we only have 1 fixed wing variant which does not require it so why install billions of pounds worth of arrestors? 4. People point to how great US super carriers are however for 50m longer of flight deck they require a crew of 5000 compared to 800 for QNLZ class. Also US sailors and marines who come onboard QNLZ class comment on how much nicer to live onboard the class is - someone who’s spent the last 6 years serving on both ships

Well.... At least it doesn't need a tugboat all the time.

What's really impressive is that the construction of HMS Prince Of Wales actually finished two years before it began

Everyone thinks aircraft Carriers are a waste UNTIL YOU NEED THEM. Harry S Truman found out in Korea and Margaret Thacher found out in The Falklands. Afterwards no one in the US made that mistake again but Britain forgets.

Despite any technical inaccuracies, Simon DOES highlight the factual issue of UK poverty and mismanaged government spending. For that alone, he should be commended

16:31 the F35-C is not a VTOL aircraft. The C variant is designed only for catapult assisted takeoff whereas the F35-B model is capable of both VTOL and STOVL depending on payload.

Part of the problem with UK Military procurement is contracts. Some 10 years ago, in Afghanistan I asked, why we used such terrible Wi-Fi antennas on the routers. (To give you an idea just how bad they were, in some situations we replaced them with cheapo metal coat hangers, bent into shape & stuffed into the port and got better performance.) The answer was, we had an exclusive contract with the manufacture. I'm sure at the time of signing said contract it was great, they probably got a load for free which at the time were better than others on the market... fast forward to 2014, and they were terrible by comparison and the UK was paying £12,000 for each! £12,000 for something worse than a coat hanger! But due to the contract, they weren't allowed to buy Wi-Fi antennas elsewhere! (I sincerely hope the contract has expired by now.)

As someone currently serving on HMS Queen Elizabeth... This guy is nuts haha.

The best use of a military is to prevent a war. Having the carriers might dissuade aggressors from picking a fight with you.

As an old First Sargeant once told me. "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over!"

British Military procurement disasters! ? That's got to be worth an episode surely? SA80, Ajax, IVECO Panther, etc etc etc etc

Sorry dude, I don’t know where you get some of your facts from, but the F35 B variant is the STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) variant and the F35 C variant is the one that requires catapults and traps. We bought the B hence why we don’t need catapults on the carriers. The C variant cannot vertically land. The squadrons of F35’s that the UK has are jointly operated by RAF and RN personnel, meaning that both RAF and RN personnel are on the same squadrons. They don’t get passed over between the RAF and RN because the squadrons are jointly manned by both services.

No, not having catapults is NOT a problem. Every decision has its pros and cons; a catapult needs A LOT OF ENERGY, which nowadays can only be achieved by nuclear propulsion. The entire UK is short of the highly qualified personal needed to operate those and even more so the Royal Navy. Also, catapults require A LOT OF MAINTENANCE, since the next gen electromagnetic catapults are on its infance yet. So opting for STOVL doctrine and F35B is the right decision for the UK (and others) now.

You say a LOT of outright wrong in this one, but 17:51 is probably the worst. ALL large military vessels are intended to spend 33% of their time in port undergoing maintenance. EVERY SINGLE ONE. 1/3 - Active. 1/3 - Reserve. 1/3 - Up keep. Every NATO military (that I'm aware of) does the [approximate] same thing. Especially given that these things are indented to be in service for 50..80+ years, the first few years are going to involve a lot of bug fixing.

Mechanical issues are part and parcel of having a new class of ship. The only thing you could maybe fault the MOD on is how well or poorly they revised the design of the Prince of Wales once a deficiency was noted with the Queen Elizabeth.

The QE class and the F35B are an awesome combination. Think of these two as a modern version of the Invincible class and Harrier and they make wonderful sense. Ski ramps don't need any maintenance and don't break down. As for not being nuclear this is a plus as well, many ports won't allow nuclear-powered ships to dock. No decommissioning issues after service use. Replenishment of fuel can be acquired at the same time as food etc. Lastly giving the QE class a hard time because of UK poverty is risible, you might want to look at the stupid net zero policy and COVID-19 £500 billion nonsense.

Never elected as PM by the UK voters it was Gordon Brown who ordered these ships. They were assembled in his own Scottish constituency and went well over budget despite being denied basic equipment. He of course retained his seat in Westminster after he almost totally bankrupted the UK on TWO occasions while in Downing Street.

Simon........grrrrr. The F-35C is not STOVL. It is similar to the standard F-35A but designed for CATOBAR, so has stronger landing gear and tail hook. Only the F-35B that we Brits use is STOVL. I can't help thinking that Megaprojects prioritises output over accuracy sometimes.

As an American, I consider the Queen Elizabeth Class to be more successful than our littoral classes or the Zumwalt class. Then there's the Russian Kuznetsov.... Relatively speaking, UK isn't doing too bad. Additionally: As for financial prudence, people in the US have been saying the same thing about our Nimitz class for years despite its record. The F35 problem is world wide, especially if said country is waiting for the block 4 version which has constantly been pushed back time wise. Navy procurement... I can't speak to the level of issues, but UK is currently not alone in that area.

As a Brit, your opening is not quite accurate. The FIRST purpose built aircraft carrier was launched by Japan a few weeks before the Royal Navy. The first 3 Japanese Carriers that had Bridges were on the Port side. Japan then changed to the British standard Starboard Island design.

Does anyone else get the impression that Simon & his writers enjoy knocking the UK?

The UK needs carriers as it is responsible for the security of 14 territories outside the UK. That can only be done effectively with naval airpower, as was aptly demonstrated during the Falklands campaign.

33% of down time for maintenance and repair is half the expected amount, the problem isn't reliability, its that we have too few of them. With ships, subs and most aircraft you need 3, ideally 4 to gurentee that one is operational at any one time. One is operational, one is in light maintenance, and the third is in deep maintenance.

I know the exact reasons why the price soared and the build time ran over. It took a long retired naval architect to sort out the myriad problems caused by a massive miscalculation on the weight of the aircraft and the deck thickness needed to support that weight. The thicker deck required more bulkheads to support it which caused its own problems.the architect who solved it all was a good friend of my father's and in his late seventies when he was approached to sort it.

The common theme here is, that public servants who've never served a day in the military or even had a real job, think they know everything, but in actual fact, don't have a clue!

To be fair, the RIM-162 is the evolved Sea Sparrow missile with a range of 27 miles (unclassified), while the RIM-116 is the rolling airframe missile with a range of about 6 miles (unclassified). These are additional point defense weapons, not replacements for the 90+ mile range Standard missiles on the Ford's escorts.

At the end of the day HMS Queen Elizabeth sailed to the other side of the world with the largest compliment of 5th generation fighters at the time with 4 world class air defence destroyers, 2 frigates equipped with the worlds leading sonar tech, and 1 of the worlds best attack submarines, if you don't see that as a threat off you're coast then you're an ally.

The Queen Elizabeth class inherited the wild spirits of their battleship predecessors, who were inexplicably plagued with a multitude of mechanical gremlins from steering difficulties to unexplained weight gains that couldn't be fixed despite 2 complete rebuilds and a host of refits, and yet remained to date the most successful battleships ever built.

Useful things for QE Carrier class: They can be hired, or lent to Canada and Australia, if needed, for them to put their planes onto. And they can supply their planes and pilots, to our aid in emergencies. They boost our national prestige and morale, helping to maintain our stiff upper lips, impress teenagers on glossy recruitment magazines and raise our military’s pyramid, to previously unforeseen, dizzying heights. They’re a central focal point, for our navy, the military as a whole and the entire nation. Purpose to our national identity and what it means to be British. Think British, think Navy. They deter foreign aggression towards our homeland, or allies and friends around the whole world and impose our presence on the global stage. If you have super carriers, you have an ear at all the top diplomatic tables and no one can ignore you. They cement our place on the UN Security Council. You never know when the Argies will have another pop at the Falklands, or something similar elsewhere. They can patrol the global sea lanes and maintain the free navigation of trade. Projecting aerial power deep into potential enemy’s territory. They can be used for launching helicopters, drones, ospreys and a wide range of planes, not just F35s. To condemn them for not having full compliments of F35s, when they’re obviously much more versatile than that, is very silly and childish. They create tens of thousands of jobs, not just in the military, also building, maintenance, shipyard and supply chains, also in technical engineering and R&D. They’re a key stone for the strength of the entire military and the nation. They support and protect all our other ships, airbases and key assets around the world. As they all mutually support and protect the carriers, as well as each other. This also applies to our ally’s militaries. They’re key assets for the entire western alliance and give us a commanding role at the centre of allied coalitions and global security. Lastly, they also help to further education and training, within all the advanced technologies that are incorporated in the systems employed by the carriers and both the RN and RAF. They’re a massive investment, in the technical sector, for future projects, both military and commercial. I hope this sufficiently illustrated the justification, for Great Britain having super carriers? Without them we’re just little Britain, a shame and dishonour, to our history, heritage and the price that our forebears made, for us to become Great Britain.

I'll have to lecture you again Simon, we actually currently have 34 F-35B's in service but 4 of them are in the US for testing and training. By the end of next year, we will have 47 F-35B's, it would've been 48 but we lost one last year. The British government would like the manufacturing process to be quicker but LM are at absolutely full capacity with huge backed up order books so we have to wait our turn. Things have also been slower as the M.O.D want the latest tranche of the F-35B's, which is understandable, so that has affected delivery dates etc...

Really going for the record of most inaccuracies and mistakes in a video here. Most of this stuff you could have easily found the correct information with just a little extra research.

And how many parents get paid good money through building those ships in the UK to feed their children? I get that probably hate military spending and think the money is just burned, but normally it creates jobs and usually jobs are decent at providing the necessary income to cater to your basic needs. Sure more money in education and such would be helpful, but the money is not wasted.

Your POW building maths are something Dr Who would be proud of, started in 2019 and taking 8 years to build!!!

A bit unfair on Prince of Wales at the end there. She was on 30 days notice to sail (so in maintenance after conducting trials with UAVs) before being needed to replace QE and given just 7 days to sail. She sailed in 8 days. Also F35C are not vertical take off capable.

The Prince of wales sailing from Portsmouth in feb was delayed by 24 hours not a week and it was due to the basin test being delayed nothing mechanical

The HMS Queen Elizabeth is no where near the level a supercarrier should be. The USS Enterprise set the bar as the first super carrier on the planet and thus any ship nowadays trying to be put in the supercarrier category should have at least the capabilities that the Enterprise had.

14:44 Oi! that's one of our f35's! It's Australian! you can see the Roo and everything! go buy your own! ;)

British carriers operate as part of NATO's fleet. It gives the UK stealth strike capability anywhere in the world, an ability the UK has never had. Inside NATO, it was only a limited capability with the USA alone. The F35 is a game-changer, and the British F35s can carry the Meteor BVR missile, perhaps the best in the world. While steam catapults would add significant capability, they also require significant cost not only for purchase but for maintenance as well as significant drain on power plant. If the USA manages to get electromagnetic catapults stabilized in the Ford class, these could be retrofitted on the British carriers though at significant expense. The F35 is a HUGE game changer. Prior to that, the only stealth strike was only 20 B2s, retired F117s, and F22s that have limited ground strike ability and low numbers. If the British could get two carriers with 100 F35Bs, that stealth strike ability is better than anything the USA had prior to 2015 or so. These carriers are roughly the same size as the old American Kitty Hawk class, certainly big enough. The biggest drawback of a Kitty Hawk was small armory size since they were initially designed for nuclear strike not conventional. Still, they gave good service for 50 years.

I believe 34 F35B now in UK hands, a total of 47 to be in service by end of 2025, within 21 months. As for USMC F35B's deploying on occasion, this was likely part of the original plan to leverage NATO resources. Defensive missiles need to be added, as well as anti-drone capabilities. This is not an insurmountable problem, and it's even possible to deploy UK or allied vehicle-mounted AD systems on deck. Yes, the UK needs more escorts, but once again allied navies are being leveraged. These are extremely capable ships and ensure the UK remains a major power.

Since HMS Hermes in 1959, Britain hasn't built a single aircraft carrier. All 5 air capable ships built, Invincible, 3 ships, CVF, 2 ships have only been capable of operating VSTOL aircraft. The CVF has no greater air power than the USN amphibious flattops which are also capable of operating the F-35B Thanks to the CVF the RAF cannot operate the most capable F-35A variant. Because of budget constraints, they are forced to operate the slowest variant, which carries an engine as payload so has the least payload of any variant with the shortest range. It is also the most maintenance intensive variant as it has 2 independent powerplants that must work in tandem. They also divert scant escort assets to defend them. Keep them tied up in Pompey.

One good thing with carriers is that they are around for decades and will be continually upgraded. So missiles are likely still in its future and will be installed with minimal effort. The catapult on the other hand, would basically take a carrier out for a year and would be a massive and costly resign of the ship.

6:49 The 25 knots is the stated speed, QE 2 has been verified to reach 30+ knots

The QE can carry up to 60 aircraft, although in wartime its not likely to exceed 50. The reason why it normally carries a much smaller air wing is because the UK just does not have the aircraft. Likewise on speed, she can do up to 32 knots, but speed is normally limited to 25 to preserve the life of the engines. If there was a re-run of the Falklands war, these ships would certainly exceed the 25 knots if getting there was an imperative and if the tactical situation - high speed manouvre when under attack. Perhaps a slip of the tongue, but the F35C is not vertical take off and landing capable, only the F35B is and is therefore the only version the QE class can operate. Finally, I'm pretty sure that converting these ships to catapult will be very difficult and very expensive and I have read elsewhere, experts on naval architecture and war ship design it is likely to be prohibitive; just not cost effective.

American here. Say what you will out British procurement, but it's a lot better than Canadian procurement. [You should do a video about the second rate (at best) CAF.]

Re: Maintenance schedules; US CVNs are in regular depot maintenance 36% of their 32 month operational cycles. It's part of the reason the USN maintains a fleet of 11 supercarriers - because at any given time (in crude terms) 4 of these carriers are undergoing depot maintenance, leaving 7 for operations. (It's more complicated than this but that is the bare bones of it.) Having said that, I don't know the details of the PoW''s situation and whether its time in maintenance was scheduled or a reaction to construction cock-ups.

F-35C is a vertical take off aircraft? Simon take some time off, your stretching yourself too thin

33% downtime would be conducive of a three ship class. which was the orginal plan. to have a ship in a constant state of readyness the uk needed 3 carriers. 1 havbing maintence, 1 being re stocked and on standby and the 3rd on deployment. the third ship was axed due to budget constraints and we now end up with a gap in the carrier fleet rotation so inevitably we end up with no ship ready for deployment.

"About as useful as a chocolate teapot" the most polite insult ever. 🤣🤣

Before the ships were built, a company was employed to find out whether they were value for money. The reply was NO but Gordon Brown was worried about the SNP, so building these ships would save Scottish jobs. Our Trident fleet is run down, we cannot afford the airframes for one, let alone two carriers, and we do not have enough ships to act as the task force to protect them. They do not carry awacs aircraft just short distance helicopters but I am not sure they have even arrived yet. We did have nuclear engines available, we use them in our subs, but it was all about saving money, not creating a truly powerful strike force.

5:10 uh simon...my man... Uh... 2021 start construction and finished in 2019? Im not thenonly one who heard that, yeah?

Prince of wales somehow started construction in 2021 and commissioned in 2019 😉

Okay it’s not the best carrier but here’s some counter points all things considered: it might actually be better and even more effective and affordable to build lightweight defense ships rather than having the carrier worry about its defense, the ability to maintain and produce a carrier is a national security issue that is addressed by this, you don’t need the planes we have them anywhere you fight we fight, you don’t even strictly speaking need the defensive ships our strike groups can defend you too, this allows massive power projection, I assume f35s are not the only planes your carriers are rated for, I suppose not being nuclear powered means that it is hypothetically safer and easier to maintain

When the carrier's get their full compliment of F-35Bs. Then your be singing a different tune. Plus all that you don't know.

Simon, this US-pandering script, with its cynical "things seemed to go fine" comments. The F35B is a potent weapon. Yes we wanted CATOBAR but even without it the air wing on the at-sea ship is formidable. As for utilisation and maintenance, for sure 3 carriers would be preferable and reliance upon 2 means more wear and tear upon them and longer periods in-dock for maintenance, replenishment and work-up, but the intention has only ever been to have 1 carrier deployed at any one time. Lets not encourage our US cousins to look down their noses at us. We remain the second most effective navy in the Western world.

While I may not be as aware of most British economics and issues, I'd say the QEC do their jobs rather fine Considering that at the moment they stand as a fairly new carrier from the 2000s, alongside Ford and Fujian, you'd expect these problems to occur with such carriers Not to mention how the carriers did actually have a easy way to switch out from their current cope ramp to a more powerful catapult system (Project Ark Royal) As for conventional power, which was actually planned, the only reason it was removed was for 2 reasons, one is that the ship was built in Scotland, a nation that doesn't like nuclear power very much and is already against the British when it came to their Vanguard class submarines Two is the legal issues of actually bringing the ship towards allied docks, such as Australia which has banned nuclear powered ships from entering their space. Finally the fact over maintenance, while 33% may sound like quite a ton, its actually just slightly over the average amount that an aircraft carrier actually undergoes. It's why navies will follow a system called the rule of 3 or 4 when it comes to carriers (Also used by submarines), one undergoes maintenance, one is out, one prepares to dock and one prepares to leave, the massive problem comes to the fact the UK only has 2 carriers, which can be considered the least cost efficient solution in comparison to having 3 or even just one carrier. So maintenance isn't really a massive issue either but rather British requirements Realistically I don't see why people make it such a big mess about how QEC and POW are bad ships, yes their country that manages them is under fire but I don't suspect they'd be scrapped any time soon, and may even receive upgrades well into the future

To be honest, not being nuclear powered isn't a problem as the Queen Elizabeth's range, fully-fuelled, is 10,000 miles. Being a STOVL carrier with a ski ramp does limit options for the carriers, but there are plenty of ways around it that could still make it a huge asset. The real problem is the lack of investment. The Government (both Treasury and MoD) spent £7 billion on two carriers and then decided to cheap out, when really they needed full investment. A full fleet of 100+ F-35Bs would enable both ships to operate with 30+ planes, or a single ship to operate with 30-36 F-35s and the RAF to still operate several squadrons simultaneously, and these should have been purchased and delivered sooner. Even retaining the old Harriers and Sea Harriers to operate alongside the F-35s until the latter reaches full capacity numbers would have been something; obsolete fighters being better than no fighters at all. There was no thought to AEW capability, with the Crowsnest system mounted on Merlin helicopters really being a stopgap issue with no real replacement in the works. Real thought and planning should have gone into a STOVL-capable aircraft for AEW and air to air refuelling, prior to the carriers' construction and commission. Osprey aircraft retrofitted for AEW or air to air refuelling, would have been a great idea. But no, HMG goes in for penny-pinching.

The Royal Navy website says the QE class can carry upto 72 aircraft, with upto 36 of those being F-35B's, presumably the other half would be helicopters or potentially drones but still this is more than 1/3 of what the Ford class can carry, im not sure how you work that one out. These sorts of videos generally annoy me, they're usually pesemistic and negative but in reality these are very capable ships and we're lucky to have them, once they are fully operational they will prove themselves, any new new ship of this magnitude and complexity will inevitably have teething problems, look at the Americans with the Ford class, years of delays and billions over budget, we aren't the only nation to have problems. Lastly its worth remembering that very few nations have this capability and outside of the US they are the most capable carriers.

I find interesting that he thinks 33% of the time on maintenance is something uncommon to carriers, the US has 11 super carriers, because 1/3 of them are always on maintenance, or ferrying to get to maintanece, so they realized they needed at to have 4 super carriers at any given time, one to protect each coast and two available at all times for a two front war like the WWII, so if 1/3 are on maintenance, 1/3 are on route either for maintenance, or are on downtime for other reasons, like crew and command replacement, reasuply things that cannot be done at sea, etc. So to have 4 supercarriers available at any given time they needed 11 or 12 of them. All nations with carriers knows they spend roughly 1/3 of their lifetime on maintenance and upgrades. And usually it takes a bit longer to reach that point, the French Charles De Gaule spent a 60% of its first 5-6 years in service on maintenance and upgrades.

All that I'm gonna say is that, when WWIII breaks out, Britain's gonna be glad to have even these two carriers. The reason why so many people are able to question their capabilities and their value right now is because they haven't had a chance to reach the prime of their operational lives in the heat of conflict. Once they can prove their mettle, people will forget all about the teething problems - until they start to age less gracefully, of course. Same is true with our Osprey aircrft - the teething problems were viewed as a liability when they were first deployed to Iraq in 2007/2008, but they serve our country almost flawlessly ever since then - until they started to get old and break on us recently, of course.

One of the best things the Royal Navy have done in decades. They should have made them CATOBAR and had better air defense. Only real point of clarification is that the air wing numbers are misleading. These ships can carry significantly more aircraft (if the UK ever get them) the US numbers include on deck numbers the UK numbers do not.

Sunday times did a great 2 page spread in Jul 22 on the 2 carriers and why they have arrived at where they are , from conception to final build. Very interesting.

3:52 the ships 7:11 their service 9:50 criticisms 18:28 conclusion

Aircraft capacity is up to 70 and speed is up to 32 knots as proven for both ships on their trials. The F35b total order is 48 rising to 72. - we only ever had 40 sea harriers and they performed quite well when needed.

It's a platform. It can be upgraded and enhanced over the next thirty years as the need allows. At the moment the UK does not need 72 carrier borne F35s. But if we do, we have the platforms to carry them. Catapults and missile systems an be installed whenever. It's a question of priorities. At the moment they are fit for purpose. The video never asked what they are for. There are no credible enemies at the moment.

Wonder what happened to the Harrier and Sea Harrier? You know, the aircraft that 'saved' the Falklands despite being a toy aircraft compared to Mirages and Skyhawks. Capable of being operated from any ship with a bit of flat 'deck', including container ships.

Doesn't defining poverty based on relationship to the median kind of guarantee that a certain proportion will always be there regardless of the actual outcomes of their income? I'm sure the poverty problem is real and severe, that way of defining it just struck me as odd

19:00 QE launched at 65,000 tonnes displacement. PoW launched at 70,400 tonnes as it had extra equipment installed before launching, while QE had that equipment installed after launching. So say 70,400 tonnes for each warship. Now add fuel, stores, weapons, aircraft, crew and ammunition. That’s another 10,000 tonnes to add to displacement. The QE class are conservatively 80,000 tonnes at full war load, with additional systems added over the life of service, it’s likely they will reach 85,000 tonnes.

The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier, from its first inception, as far back as about 1988/9 , went through Many revisions. (The British had been operating three aircraft carriers from the 1970's to about 2010. ) With all the revisions, over so many years, many get confused! The original plans for the QE were made years before the F35 plane was even an idea. With each new revision, always to make it cheaper to make : the capabilities were reduced.

Could be worse. Could be the Kuznetsov 😂

Aircraft carriers are like own a gun. It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Oh boy, gotta hate when people who don't know what they're talking about wade into this subject: RIM-116 is a close in weapons system, basically another Phalanx, designed as a last ditch, not "to be fired before escorts get involved." To put this into perspective RIM-116 is a 9km range. Sea Viper/Aster which is carried by British Escorts (yes the RN does actually have escorts) has a range of over 120km, and CAMM, the missile family that's used for short range defence in the Royal Navy, has a range of over 25km. Given the fact that launching a missile like that directly off the carrier means a FOD plod before the carrier can resume operations there are completely valid reasons for suggesting that by the time your escorts (which again THE UK ACTUALLY HAS) have failed to destroy a target you'll be in Phalanx range of the threat anyway! It's not actually a head scratcher to the people who know what they are talking about. In FACT the Invincible class where launched with a Sea Dart anti-aircraft missile system during their service in the Falklands and it WAS REMOVED because in favour of more flight deck space after operational experience, leaving the Invincibles, like the Queen Elizabeths, without a missile system. Oh and great an F-35 rant. Lets talk about the F-35 numbers then: Currently the UK has 34 F-35s, but the current order is for 48, with an aspiration for 138. So why so slow? Well it's in part because the production line of F-35's is a bit slow in the first place, but also because any F-35's the UK currently buys will not have the planned Block IV upgrades, and will have to go back to the factory to have those upgrades installed. Oh and the Invicibles, when all three where at sea at the same time, carried 36 Harriers, at maximum load out. Just worth remembering that little fact. Oh and the Americans haven't "had" to lend any of theirs, and Carrier Strike Group 23 deployed with an all British Airwing so they haven't "lent" any of theirs on the last deployment, but hey, what to details like that matter when you have an outrage train to start? (Also lent is a heavily loaded term, the US was looking at the feasibility of deploying USMC airpower from British Carriers and so deployed one of their squadrons, with US pilots and US planning staff on board the Queen Elizabeth, it wasn't like they just handed over a few F-35s). OH and GREAT we're going to lie about CATOBAR being just a money thing now are we? Nothing at all to do with the RN having had decades of experience with STOVL aircraft carriers... okay so you are actually full of shit at this point because CATOBAR vs STOVL is not "Objective" there are in fact merits to STOVL, for example: Flight training. Guess what, keeping air crews qualified on CATOBAR carriers is REALLY hard, so hard in fact that the French have to borrow flight time from American carriers to keep their aircrews competent in the skill. Which I'm sure youtubers like you would LOVE to stack into a video like this. Or how about how STOVL carriers can operate their airwings in heavier sea states than CATOBAR? Or the fact that a STOVL carrier means that "bolters" aren't a thing, so you don't need dedicated AAR aircraft, or aircraft to land with a significant fuel reserve. Also worth noting that the F/A-18 (the only realistic alternative to the F-35) has a smaller combat radius than the F-35B but nobody ever mentions THAT fact when complaining about not being CATOBAR. Oh and great a Project Ark Royal reference at the end: For starters THE NAVY DID NOT WANT CATOBAR from the start. They asked for QE designs to be made with design considerations to be made for either CATOBAR OR STOVL, and from the start went with STOVL. There was a brief dalliance with CATOBAR in 2011, which was u-turned on pretty quickly. More importantly Project Ark Royal is going to fit a catapult....rated to launch light weight drones not manned fighter jets. Acting like this is a retrofit into a CATOBAR carrier is extremely dishonest. Let us be clear: Fitting CATOBAR would have been a disaster, not just from a money perspective (it would have seen one of the carriers cancelled), but also because the QE's where not designed with Steam Catapults in mind. Contrary to your blithe assertion that catapults are a "old news" EMALS are brand new, and the only catapults that the QE's can accommodate are EMALS systems. The same EMALS systems in fact that still have an abysmal failure rate on the Gerald R Ford, that have delayed her entry into service for years and still in 2024 present a huge obstacle to her being employed on operations. Imagine the field day UKpostsrs would have with THAT scenario.

I was comforted knowing that the US isn’t alone in bureaucratic incompetence. So we’re proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our British comrades, hoping that the Russian and Chinese leaders are somehow worse and unprepared than we are. Now we can all sleep well tonight 🥱🛏️

You make the point that the carriers are too expensive as is, but you advocate for fitting the carrier with either Nuclear power to enable steam catapults to be used, or highly expensive and not fully working EMALS, or the 20 million per plane more expensive f-35C

So I was waiting for an argument against the QE Carriers warfighting capability. The only argument is Britain's poverty. If you want a Navy, you have to pay for it. Simple as that.

U.K. Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Sidelined, - Royal Navy carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) was forced to cancel its deployment at the last minute because of a problem with its propeller shaft, with sister ship HMS Prince of Wales (R09) now being mobilized to replace it.

You said the UK "had to" use U.S. F-35's to fill out the compliment of the British carrier. My impression was that those aircraft were aboard as an exercise to improve inter-operability between allies, not to make up for a lack of airframes.

I remember in the 1970s how bad the Abrams tank was being attacked. We see how that turned out. Proof is in the pudding.

Your title is wrong. HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales will last over 50yrs. The last Captain of both ships hasn't been born yet. They are Great value.

If you think British military procurement is bad, I encourage you to look into Canadian military procurement. In fact there’s probably a whole video there on its own.

I remember a while back in an article, can't remember where but by someone knowledgeable about naval matters, that if you want an aircraft carrier then you need three. You need two working together to put enough aircraft in the sky to make a difference. But you need to allow for one to be out of service for repairs and maintenance at any one time. So you need three. Perhaps in the case of HMS Queen Elizabeth, if it is vital for the Royal Navy then it is vital that there are at least two of her, because HMS QE will will sometimes be out of action for repairs and maintenance.

It's not about ego or national pride, it's about power projection. As someone who is old enough to remember when the UK had to come and defend a couple of islands in the south Atlantic from a fascist dictatorship I absolutely want the UK to have a carrier group. Not a China-proof carrier group, that's not it's role, but a tinpot fascist dictatorship proof carrier group. Not understanding that is not understanding what it is to be an ally of the post colonial countries who rely on us as a source of security.

Also important to note that with a straight deck ski-jump carrier, you can only launch OR land ONE plane at a time. It's very much sequential. With the angled deck most US carriers have, you can launch 2 nearly back to back (not precisely at the same time, but within 5-10 seconds of each other), while lining up one to land. The best a straight deck could ever do is "launch one, land one". Critically mind-boggling is that not only did the British invent the carrier, they invented the steam catapult, AND the angled deck. Yet modern British carriers (and those of many other nations) totally lack these technologies. Imagine being told by Apple that the next gen iPhone will go back to only making phone calls, have physical number pad buttons, and a text only screen. "It's the FUTURE. You'll buy it. And you'll love it! But, if after trying it out for a few years, if you are dissatisfied, we will make touch screen add-on for extra cost."

In my view, it is imperative for the UK to relinquish its status as a major maritime power and redirect resources towards addressing domestic issues such as knife crime, poverty, and immigration. From a military perspective, I propose prioritizing the development of asymmetric capabilities, such as submarines and anti-ship missiles

According to a fairly senior RN officer of my acquaintance, the reason the Navy didn’t want catapults (pre -Brexit of course) was the fear that they might be forced to buy Rafale-M. The idea of using French aircraft being obviously much more dangerous to Britannia‘s rule of the waves than (nearly) no aircraft at all.

Some valid points but given the USMC have massively praise HMS Elizabeth’s capabilities just as it has earned it’s praise on operations then I’d say it’s more than a success at 1/4 the price of the Gerald Ford class and it’s still the only carrier running purely 5th generation aircraft

These are not toys. Given rising probability of a world conflict I’m happy they have them.

A bit dumb. The T45 is a highly regarded AAW destroyer, (When they fix the engines) escorts the QEC Carriers. Why compromise the Carrier, by having to manage a missile system. Your argument for catapults is flawed. They would have required nuclear power to generate enough steam for this sized carrier, and hence would have been subject to Allies port restrictions. EMALS was nowhere mature enough, and the US has still to get EMALS operational. The QEC Class carriers, cost the UK Tax payer around £7billion for two. Compare that $13 billion for the US Gerald Ford Carrier, then the British are actually getting rather good value for money. Personally I would have gone for 3 x through Deck UAV Carriers, similar to the Invincible class. But we still insist on having brave pilots in our Combat and Strike Aircraft. The PWLS was actually on a 30 day turnaround, but achieved a 9 day turnaround, when it was needed to replace the HMS QNLZ in the recent NATO exercise. So rather than 48 hour delay, she actually achieved a record time maintenance turnaround. But don't let that spoil your tedious little diatribe.

It's OK though, at least we have Trident nuclear weapons to defend us. Oh wait...

We french choose to only have 1 aircraft carrier, hoping war will wait us a bit, but at least it has its aircrafts

The music to the conclusion would have been more hilarious if it was a tuba. Really sets the mood

The ramp is better for fuel than direct vertical takeoff, but still not as fuel efficient as a catapult. Hence the lack of range. Having said that, that ramp thing was genius. Britain invented that for the harrier.

We got each for around a couple a billion each which is a steal when you see the capabilities and technology, the teething issues are an acceptable cost.

Doesn't anyone proofread your scripts? How can construction begin in 2021, take eight years into the future from when this was recorded, and be completed in 2019, two years prior to when construction started?

I mean we got them, so thats not to bad! We could do with more navy not less. And less starving kids, it is possible to do both if you're not incompetent and corrupt. We may be glad we have them in the future.

This reminds of Russia. Russia thinks itself to be the USSR. It's not. Russia wanted to reactivate the Kirov class heavy cruisers (a more accurate designation, interestingly enough used by the Soviets) or battlecruisers (misnomer if you look into the details), named Project 1144 Orlan by the Soviets. The USSR only had 3 of them and were building a 4th but they already had an accident on 1 and considered it to be a total loss. Worth mentioning that the Soviets wanted to build 5 Kirov class heavy cruisers but realised they're not worth the money and effort so they cancelled the last 1. The Russians wanted to reactivate the 1 that was a total loss too. They also wanted to make a supercarrier, the Shtorm class, to replace the Admiral Kuznetsov class heavy aircraft cruiser. There were plans for other actual aircraft carriers that had a comparable capability to the Admiral Kuznetsov that were easier and cheaper to build and maintain but the Russians really wanted to make a supercarrier. They never built it. Russia has a fraction of the military power and economic power of the USSR. My point is, if you're not as powerful as you used to be don't try to get far more expensive equipment than you used to have. The UK was better off just buying 3 modernised light aircraft carriers that would replace the Invincible class. There's no British Empire to support the UK anymore. Now, if these 2 ships were destroyed and were replaced with light aircraft carriers it would make the UK look weak.

“For once he roared and all did cower, or tremble before his guile. Now when he cries it’s the kitten’s whimper, the sun has set on the Lion’s Isle." Pretty much perfectly describes what the Queen Elizabeth-class represents; A once empire reduced playing second fiddle to the great powers and trying its hardest not to look like it.