Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (340)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • What is the name of the background music?

  • You can clearly see if they needed to at a time of war they could put lots more F-35 With the Hoover design just take off like that could fit over a 100 lol

  • The battleship is dead the aircraft carrie has replaced it.

    I thought Cameron had scrapped these?

  • @badwolf66 Nope, under the strategic defence review the Invincible class aircraft carrier HMS Arc Royal was scrapped. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be HMS Arc Royal's successor as flagship of the Royal Navy.

  • @alexsau91 Makes more sense now :)

    I guess by 2050 we won't have an army just a few hundred with potato guns.

    I read on the Metro that they maybe replacing most of their manned aircraft with drones..

    When the aliens invade they'll think where have all the human armies gone these are just robots we're fighting...

  • @badwolf66 We've entered a joint partnership with France to develop our own drones. Though these won't replace manned aircraft, and will only be used for spying and aerial assaults, rather than standard combat scenarios.

  • @alexsau91 I heard on BBC Radio 2 I looked it up and they're called them M.A.L.E.S in a way it reminds me of the classic WW1 tanks were they had male and female.

  • @badwolf66 NO, Labour saw to it that it would be too prohibitively expensive for the CONservatives to cancel these. So, while they are busy destroying the rest of the military (i'm former Royal Marine Commandos myself) these bad boys will live on.

  • What's that scrap metal shite on the deck... we don't want any of that junk thank you.

  • Looks good but small. Wont be even near same size than USA's Nimiz, for example?

  • @Achaventures Crikey they're the largest warships everbuilt in europe. "Small" - but quite expensive enough - we don't need anything bigger thanks

  • @Achaventures QE can operate 40 aircraft 50 if needed, they do not need anything more, in peace time its only going to operate 15 or so fighters to save money on operations.

    Only 679 to crew, 1600 with aircrews. U.S carriers are roughly 5000 to crew with aircrews.  Check out the cost savings.

  • @Achaventures Nimitz is 100.000 Tons QE is 65.000 Tons size doesnt really matter. Nimitz are outdated but still gd soon to be replaced by the Ford Class. QE Will be most advance aircraft carrier of its time. Obvi having 70-90 Aircraft on a carrier is better then having 40-50 but end of the day britain and america are allys and our fleets fucking rule lol.

  • @PyrrusOfEpirusTW

    "QE Will be most advance aircraft carrier of its time"

    What about USS Gerald R. Ford?

  • @Achaventures Well as far as i know the USS Gerald R. Ford wont have BAE System it will have a american design which isnt as advanced. The Ford Design will be exacly the same as the Nimitz just with some better technology. QE Design is a completly new design to be made perfect in everyway. End of the Day QE and Gerald R. Ford are ganna be amazing and i would love to see them together in a battle group lol.

  • @Achaventures Yep just searched it up QE Will use BAE Defence System Called Phalanx while America will use Surface to air missle Defence which isnt as advanced. but like i said Ford Will have its up sides like bigger more fighters and probz better craft if americans dont hurry up with F35 Project :P and the QE is better designed and better technology.

  • @Achaventures Actually QE will have catapults & arresting gear, I just thought that it wouldn't have, because Britain used Harrier and F-35 also uses VTOL.

    But QE will still only have CIWS for airborne threats (according to wikipedia), which is not enough (in my opinion).

    I still can't see QE as an leader ship for large operations, it would be part of American group and defening their bigger ships.

  • fake shit lolllllll GO you medal of honour heros

  • @BartRamone This is a simulation of two Royal Navy supercarriers currently under construction and due to enter service around 2014.

    Google it if you don't believe me.

  • @BartRamone Obviously this is fake, i.e computer generated as they dont enter service for a couple of years yet...but they are already being built and are well under way.

  • @BartRamone And the great thing is, these wont be as antiquated as the American carriers.

  • i feel very patriotic now thank you

  • to quote Bazil Fawlty........I mentioned the war once..but I think I got away with it lol.

  • RR today is a major player in the commercial aircraft sector with its Trent series second only to GE. UNFORTUNATELY in the fighter aircraft sector, RR has nothing to offer and dwindled into insignificance compared to P&W and GE .RR has developed only three engines of its own since 1945.Bac Lightning,Harrier and the jet trainer Hawk and that's all.Amazing isn't it.All others were either licence production such as F-4 Phantom or joint ventures with others Tornado,Eurofighter,Jaguar.Its very sad.

  • RR decided not to use fuel injection, a carburettor Merlin produced a higher specific power output than an equivalent fuel injected engine. The fuel/air mixture becomes more dense with a drop in temperature in a carb`. As opposed to an injected engine. RR believed the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. As it turned out they were wrong. later Merlin engines were fuel injected.

  • Comment removed

  • is a very close call between US and Germany..Pratt and Whitney was the best in radials by a very very long distance but the US didn't work enough on inlines and this is the main reason why they were behind Britain and Germany in jet engine development at the end of WW2. The engines of WW2 is a fascinating subject.

  • @Onera1970 Yes indeed. If you get the chance I advise you to visit "Fantasy of Flight" in Polk county Florida, it is magnificent. I am from Sheffield in England and this man called Kermit Weeks has an entire air museum with quite a number of aircraft that fly, there is a Spitfire and a Liberator bomber etc. He also purchased dozens of new aircraft engines from WW2, and they are lined up in racks and all they need are new gaskets and fresh oil, amazing.I am going again in November 2012

  • @spotswood4444 Thanks for the advice.The owner of one of the biggest supermarket chains in Sweden whom I know personally owns a Spitfire built in 1945 and a P-51 built in 1946 both still in pristine condition.He has a private hangar and hired a mechanic and put him in charge of these legends.Well,he is worth at least 500 million dollars.I spent an unforgettable day in his private hangar asking 1000 questions to the mechanic.These two old fighters are masterpieces of engineering !

  • @spotswood4444 Duxford was a pretty impressive show been there last year.

  • Best radials in my opinion were built by Pratt and Whitney series and followed by Germany with the BMW 800s. In terms of manufacturing quality, I definitely got to go with Pratt and Whitney as more by a long shot of their engines are still around !If you look at the aircraft the PW's powered including replacing the Bristols in RAF aircraft you can't really argue too much.

    Merlin is definitely my favorite when it comes to fighter engines but the answer to the question who built the best engines

  • @Onera1970 Objection ! and its sustained . RR Merlin engines were susceptible to carburetor stall which cost many RAF pilots lives during the Battle of Britain 1940 ..(The major weakness of Spitfire compared to Messerschmitt 190's fuel injection turbo)Also USAF pilots who fitted their Mustang's to increase the power and the high altitude capacity complained about the technical deficiencies of the MERLIN ...

  • Comment removed

  • @sidewinder188 The early Merlin engines were fueled by carb yes.The engines used to stall when the aircraft pulled negative G forces. .When a German pilot had a Spit` on his 6, he simply went into a dive, the Spitfire couldn`t follow. However, if the Spitfire pilot did a half roll before following, the carburettor wasn`t affected as much.Despite the obvious disadvantage Merlin powered aircraft WON the battle of Britain against a far superior force, in numbers at least.

  • @Onera1970 Lets be realistic ,shall we?the RAF has won not because RR Merlin was the best engine or Spitfire was the best fighter or something .The Luftwaffe had to fly over the channel, which meant the fighters had a limited amount of fuel to fight whereas the British fighters would have more fuel and the ability to get re-fueled and come back.German pilots had no more than 10 minutes time in British air space while the RAF pilots had all the time in the world and took advantage.

  • @barracuda7018 This is true to a point however the British had around 800 fighters compared with the Luftwaffe force of over 2500. Still a brilliant result for the free world.

  • @barracuda7018 Well this certainly not the only reason you shouldn't discount the excellent job radars have done as a result of which Spitfires and Hurricans were always at the right place,right time

  • @ and also the german military intelligence was poor. Its sources said radar stations were unimportant and should not be targets. It also misreported strength, weapons, and losses.

    so many factors.

  • @sidewinder188 The big problem with the Messerschmit 109's was that they were nose heavy, and they lost many of them in taking off and landing. Also the undercarriage was very narrow and this caused great stability issues. The RR Merlin was superior to the Allison that was originally supplied in the P51 Mustang.

  • @spotswood4444 superior actually in one critical area namely the long range bomber escort missions which made P-51 the most legendary fighter of WW2.Spitfire won a battle,but P-51 won the war .Allison's performance was most impressive up to 15,000 feet,it had better ground attack potential than RR Merlin and its high speed at low altitude were amazing it was a very reliable powerplant but was unable to deliver its power at sufficiently high altitudes where RR Merlin virtually excelled.

  • @spotswood4444 Allison could have been as good a high-altitude engine as any but the development of bomber engines were given priority over all others in the US due to shortage of some vital alloying materials .Dacades later, Allison in the US was bought by Rolls Royce ,it shows the deep love affair between the two Allison today makes engines for C-130 Hercules, the best turboprops in the world, if you ask me .

  • Germany had absolutely best technical innovations,was only one country with rocket and jet engines in military use same time.The best liquid cooled inline fighter engine goes to RR Merlin.The best innovations from begin till end of the war/ Germany

    Bosch System for the BMW 801, the mechanical injection DB 601, the boost systems MW 50 and GM1) And a very close match up (DB 600er series, Jumo 213 and BMW 801) with no quality of fuel and no quality of raw materials available to manufacture. 

  • Who built the best engines in WW2 is an equation with many variables. The US had probably best factories and very good sources of materials. Also US has had a very nice radial engines and using of turbo supercharger has had great influence. Britain was very good inline engines and sleeve valve radials, but had a some lack of manufacturing equipments and materials due bombing raids. Also in my opinion RR get a best influence of centrifugal supercharges in Merlin engine. .

  • Why do yanks always either try to take credit for everything or discredit good work of others??

    Just because the Yanks coined the words RADAR and SONAR they think they came up with them!! ha ha. And by the way yankies NEARLY all of your land military vehicles are British and even your MBT has British armour.

  • @ryantika All US land military vehicles are britsh ????? you must have read this in latest HARRY POTTER fantasy novel. .On the contrary ,Britsh Army placed a huge military vehicle order with US General Dymanics worth few billion Pounds recently .

  • @barracuda7018 I said NEARLY all, read it properly and they are, name a vehicle other than the Humvee and the Abrams and I'll tell you if it's British or not. All your HGV's are.

  • @sidewinder188 - Yes a few of those yanks in the 40's got lynched and hung from oaks trees. Typical American girl I met in Mexico on holiday "Hi are you from London? I love your accent! Whats the capital of London? Is it England?! Well me and my buddie did her and got her pregnant. Still don't know if it was mine or his though, who cares! Anyway back to the point. Our politicians are poodles. Most Brits cant stand Yanks unless they've got blonde hair, wearing mini skirts and total whores lol ;-)

  • @jamesthedude1977 But how can you pal ? half of all Brits are faggots..Sidewinder is correct the yanks made 80.000 english girls pregnant in 1944 when they left for Invasion of France.This is pretty much official.. Don't use your British accent in America never people might think you are a cocksucker..American girls know very well Englishmen are miserable in bed. 

  • @barracuda7018 We could say the same about how many American girls were made pregnant just before 1776, but then lots of Yanks are from British stock anyway.

    Maybe we are not the best in bed, but we are the best soldiers.

  • Come the day when the American people are enslaved and cowed I will smile. Imagine a day when, not too far from now, the US defaults on its loans and cannot run its military. What happens then? I'll tell you. China calls in its debts and since US will be bankrupt, China will take land instead. Because they are overcrowded, they will colonise the USA and breed you out. They will whore out your women and the American men will be castrated and made into house servants. Ha ha ha ha I cant wait ;-)

  • @duplex2411 - urm no its not ;-)

  • @FORBAN2 - Yes but we still have the US weapons plus plenty of our own such as the Challenger 2 tank which is better than the Abrams. We have 250 nuclear warheads, more than enough to destroy US "civilisation". Best thing that could happen as so many Brits fucking hate you yanks. USA Vs Russia, China, UK. Then we could carve up US amongst us, back to the good old colonies. Russia the west coast, China the middle, UK the East coast. Make slaves of you again and take away your freedom ha ha ha ha!

  • @jamesthedude1977 So many Brits fucking hate yanks?? certainly not the english girls dude ! ..They were delighted with US invasion of Britain in 1940's .Ask your grandma . You limey faggots have massive inferiority complex towards the US..I am not surprised and  we don't give a fuck . 250 years ago we were your colony and today you are our poodles ! we order, you obey so enough reason to hate us..We can live with that.No problem .

  • @sidewinder188 It was not an invasion as you put it, The Yanks were invited.

    You forget that so many Yanks are originally from British stock anyway.

  • @barracuda7018 - Its range is sufficient for any operation the UK may need to undertake. For example perhaps assisting Russia and China in the invasion of the USA once we finally see the light and realise that the US is our common enemy ;-)

  • @jamesthedude1977 That's the true Brit ,I would say pal. .Well ,wait and see but if it is in our national interest to annihilate the UK with its 60 million people we will do it without any regret but at the moment its obviously not in our national interest as we still need you as our poodle !

  • @FORBAN2 Yes and your CIA still needs information from MI5 at all times and don't forget that any nation however big that attacks the UK can look forward to our undetectable nuclear subs sending dozens of Trident missiles their way, and big as the USA is it would be unlivable.Just thought you should know that NO ONE can win a war against the UK without getting destroyed themselves. Not so big now are you?

  • @spotswood4444 Yes, we need informations from M15 that why we all fucked up in Iraq. Tridents are made in the US and there is a myth that the UK cannot launch Trident without US approval..Of course the British governments will deny this but there is always the question. Britain is probably going to scrape it's nukes in 10 years, so it doesn't matter anyway Britain can't afford another 4 subs.

  • @duplex2411 The info for Iraq came from the CIA . Also Britain has already placed the order to replace Trident. Our current government is seriously thinking about increasing the amount of Nuclear warheads that we possess to counter any future threat from countries like Iran.

  • LordBuntaro - El radio de accion es mas limitado que una barca nucleario pero todavia sera suficiente para mantener poder Britanico por el mundo.

  • In all areas from cost to system performance the Burke is levels superior to the Daring class

    I don't see any significant advantage for RN destroyers . The USN COMBAT VESSELS are superior to those of RN ...

  • @duplex2411 no

  • @duplex2411 Not true my friend. Two vessels are passing each other in the Solent (just off the South coast of England) they pass close to each other and the Captain of the US ship radios the British captain and says "What is it like to be passed by the Biggest navy on Earth?" to which the British captain replies "What is it like to be passed by the BEST?" No reply.

  • @duplex2411 It is forecast that in the year 2016 British military spending will increase by 40%, unlike in the USA where your military spending is being cut by over half a trillion dollars because the USA is broke and owes countless trillions to China.

    You have Obama to thank for that.

  • @spotswood4444 Pal, Britain has the highest dept of all developed nations .To pay this year's £43 billion interest bill, every household will stump up more than £1,800 in tax. Its all in your newspapers ! The other conclusions about the UK national debt are that, it looks likely to reach £10 trillion by 2015, five times bigger than the US per head.

    The US defence cuts are spread over many years and in the end it will always be at leat 10 times bigger than the UK.

  • @duplex2411 Again not true, France is in a worse position than we are and also Spain,Belgium,Portugal,Greece, Italy, Ireland, Austria.

    Need I go on?

    As for your military, it should be many times bigger than ours, of course it will be you spend a fortune on your military, while many people in the USA cannot afford health care (29 million at the last estimate) While here in the UK we have a world class health service that is there as and when you need it. We don't need insurance.

  • @spotswood4444 Britains defence projects are all out of control. Nimrod cancelled after the project had already cost the government more than £3.8bn !! Astute Sub came two years late and £ 2bn over budget and thanks to the technical and engineering assistance provided by the Electric Boat in the US,it was saved !

    The cost of these two new carriers are already billion pounds or so over the budget.

    Rumor has it that one of them will be cancelled soon ! enjoy.

  • @duplex2411 HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are both being built with little expense spared, as these will be world class vessels. We decided not to fit them with Nuclear reactors as this was not needed as we have so many bases around the world, fuel is easy to get hold of. The range of each Carrier will be approx 8000 miles which is more than enough, and this will save a fortune after all who are we going to fight anyway? There will be no threat to either carrier.

  • @spotswood4444 The UK is bankrupt pal not the US which is still one of the 5 most competitive economies in the world.7 times the number one last 10 years.Astute class is down from 6 to 4,Daring class from 8 to 6.You will definitely cancel one of the two carriers ,there is no other way.Look,you don't even have a car industry of your own anymore. Aston Martin,Jaguar ,Rover all owned by foreigners The biggest British car factory is the FORD ! even Rolls Royce and Bentley belong to German BMW

  • @FORBAN2 USA owes China many Trillions of dollars, anyway Astute class subs are still going to number 7 actually. Both carriers are progressing nicely thankyou. You are correct concerning the British motor industry, however most of the marques of automobiles you mention are still manufactured in the UK, they may no longer be British names but the factories are here staffed by British workers.

  • @spotswood4444 It doesn't matter dude.Total UK debt includes household sector debt, business sector debt, financial sector debt and government debt.This is over 500% of GDP! far worse than US or France ,its frightening. China finance US budget deficits and in return we buy their crap products totalling 350 billion dollars a year. Wall Mart alone is responsable for 25% of this bullshit .This is a game between two superpowers China knows without US Market they are doomed.

  • @barracuda7018 It is interesting when facts and figures are compared between countries, don't you think?

    I understand that The US and France have a less than perfect credit rating, as do so many countries that up untill recently had a AAA rating, this includes Belgium and Austria. Britain on the other hand still has a AAA credit rating.

  • @FORBAN2 I remind you that Oldsmobile is no more, Plymouth is no more, and many of your Chevrolets are built in South Korea, as their workers do more work for less bucks as you say. However in the automotive field your Indy car engines are sent to Britain to be tuned so more power is gained as you for some reason lack the ability to get power out of an engine, in Formula One most teams are based here in the UK. We have always been the masters of motorsport. NASCAR engines are fun.

  • @spotswood4444 The US still owns its big three GM, FORD,and CHRYSLER.Britain has lost its brands.I am sure this is what Forban was trying to say.Chevrolets built in Korea still belong to GM !

  • @barracuda7018. All our brands are still built in Britain though, so we benifit.

  • @barracuda7018 You are right, in a way. Britain has lost its car brands, that is sadly true. But it punches enormously above its weight in the military defence market. C2 tank, nuclear subs, armor for the US M1 tank, howitzers for the USMC, engines for the Osprey plane, engines for the new USN littoral ships, choppers for German Navy, engines for the Jap T2 jet, engines for many Jap warships, India`s Harriers - all made in Britain. BAE owns most US land weapon firms. Not bad for a small country.

  • @transonicbuoy1 dont forget bofors

  • @dopefish93 Thanks chief. That`s another one. Greetings from Japan.

  • @FORBAN2 When it comes to cars I love US models as I used to own a Mustang and an Oldsmobile Cutlass, but US cars never sell well in Europe due to high fuel prices.

    Lets face it Cadillac and Pontiac and Buick and Chevrolet would have all died years ago had not GM grouped them all together. A few years ago we were on vacation in Florida and we hired a Chevrolet Uplander, we opened the hood as you call it and what did we find? A Mitsubishi engine. Nuff said.

  • The Burke is a considerably bigger ship with well placed steel and Kevlar armor. The location and extent of the protection of the Burke class has continued to be perfected on this large class of ships. It is doubtful the Daring is anywhere near as robust as the Burke.

    The Burke has a full range of spoffers and electronic jamers. The class has the SLQ32-V3 passive and active electronic warfare system; the highly advanced Nulka active decoy and IR and chaff decoys.

  • Unlilke Sampson , AN/SPY-3 operates in both the X-band and S-band of radar frequencies The missile magazine of the Burke can hold many more missiles of a greater variety than the Daring. The Burke can carry vertical launch ASROC for a stand off capability for Sub attack; SM2 (Block IIIB), SM-3 and SM6 missiles and their continuous updates for an extraordinary anti-air capability and Evolved Sea Sparrow missile with four missiles per magazine launch tube for fast reaction short ranger defense;

  • I don't see any superiority in destroyers either The Daring Type 45 class is in no way a match for the Burke Type IIa. It is reported that the Daring’s cost nearly twice as much as a Burke and will be built in numbers where the design will never be perfected using a missile system in such small numbers that it will be hard to keep updated The Burke is larger, with the new SPY-3D and SPQ-9B integrated radar system that is an equal to the Sampson / S1850M combination.

  • In the next 10-15 years you will begin to see the Nimitz class carriers begin to come out of service having fufilled their lifespan and be replaced by the Gerald R Ford class with many improvements such as EMALS among others and the next class on the building ways.

    The Gerald Ford Class would be the BENCHMARK for any future carrier development .The USN experience with carriers is second to none far ahead of any other country in carrier operations - in a class by itself.

  • The Nimitz class their size, range, speed and capacity (they can carry more aircraft on one platform then most countries can field at one given time) alone sets them apart from any other force at sea. These carriers are built with long legs and the means to support a crew of approxiamtely 6,000 sailors and air crews. They can stay at sea unlimited when replentished if need be .Only an idiot would think non- nuclear QE class could be more advanced !

  • @sidewinder188 The QE class is a different ballgame, it is not intended to perform like a Nimitz class carrier, the way we think is who has the worlds greatest carrier fleet/ Answer is the USA so as you are our friends, this is not an issue to the UK so we have to think about possible enemies around the globe, and the QE class is more than a match for any other navy, so as for being advanced compared to the Nimitz it is in some ways, but not in others. Nimtz class is quite old.

  • FFS guys, why are you arguing who's best, UK or US? Why argue whether the Typhoon would shoot down the F35 or the other way around?

    Are you expecting the US and the UK to go to war against each other any time soon?

    ^_^

    Jeez... we are supposed to be allies FCS.

    Stop comparing dick sizes, it's embarrassing.

  • @SAHBfan Too True 

  • we are doing well, aren't we?

  • what is the music called

  • I just hope they get this things fast, there are no harriers on the Fleet Air Arm and Argentina is again fracking around about the Falklands

  • @polecat987 Argentina would be crazy to try and screw with us again, with or without a carrier we are more than ready to take a fight to them. In the falklands war we needed a carrier but not today everything about our armed forces far out strips anything the argies could through at us.

  • when i see BAE systems, i think, well thats another ship not being made.....

  • No son nucleares. Que desengaño. Esto va a ser muy caro para el Reino Unido. Tendrán un radio de acción muy limitado

  • Can't wait to see this parked on the argentina coast line britannia will rule the waves.

  • all these folk rattling on about the cost of these two aircraft carriers. It's peanuts! What about 5 billion each? they last 40 years. (yes with planes / support it will cost more) 125000000 a year? thats nothing. social security bill is 200,000,000,000 (billion) plus the banks just 'printed' another 50 billion today. Kind of puts it in perspective.

  • I want it to be called HMS Belgrano.

  • This is a start to restructure the military. More needs to be done. Foreign aid is a pointless waste we should be strong economically,politically and militarily.

  • Prepare the aircraft for launching if you will Mr. Hornblower.

  • 6 Argentinians saw this and crapped themselves

  • @BMTHmosher Six? You mean all Argentines who have a PC... oh yeah.... 6!!! LOL to the third would cess pit of a country

    Rule Britannia.

  • @MrXray2011 true lol

  • When we get these with the aircraft....just try it Argentina,just try it.

  • @MrAl3x0o Argentina are on to a loser again as we now have HMS Daring and a Nuclear sub in the area.

  • Well Mr Camron or labour which every jackass idea was to delay on building these carriers and selling off all the harriers, how stupid do you look now. now we have no aircraft carrier of our own with planes on when we need them the most. I sure politicization are the most stupid people from around the country. oh and thanks for halving the fleet of T45 destroyers. And shrinking the armed forces to it bare bones.

  • @Perkii6 *ahem* UKIP *ahem*

  • They should just get one, and call it HMS Falkland Islands

  • @YouAreAnIdiotSoThere HMS Falkland and HMS South Georgia.

  • @YouAreAnIdiotSoThere lol, yea!!

  • Battlefield 4 engine.

  • Wrong HMS is a Helicopter Assault Ship for the royal marines, cant recall see any harriers on her decks when she went to the gulf in 2003

    Just check the MOD website

  • 22steve5150 - I beg to differ. The latest BAE destroyers and aircraft carriers are far more advanced than their US equivalents. US aircraft carriers are bigger NOT better. Please research the topic before commenting. Thankyou

  • @jamesthedude1977. BS.So you pls research the topic before commenting.

    Nimitz class supercarriers are far more advanced than anything afloat. They are nuclear powered with unlimited range, faster,bigger, carries more fighters, and more powerful. QE carriers have conventional propulsion and very limited range therefore classified as littoral combat ships.The future 14.000 tons Zumwalt class will be at least 20 years ahead of anything the RN has. I suspect you don't know what advanced means.

  • Whoa, mama!

  • It would be better If the UK did'nt buy any US built military hardware at all!

  • @jamesthedude1977 the f-22 are made from parts from the uk, usa, italy, france and germany. its an international airplane, not american

  • @sabaton12341 Shows you are a clueless idiot who doesnt know what he is talking about ...Germany, Italy and France my ass.

    You obviously confused this with Eurofighter Typhoon..The F-22 is highly classified US made stealth fighter,not available to anyone,not for sale.Go to the website and see if it has parts from France,Italy or Germany ...

  • @barracuda7018 What ?? F-22 is made by components delivered from Europe?

    only an uneducated idiot can say that.. But you are right, he might have thought about the AIRBUS !!! LOL

  • @sabaton12341 You better pull your head out of your rectum and try to find out if any part of the F-22 is made in these countries..The fighter that fits to your description is the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON and not the F-22..

  • @jamesthedude1977 It is extremely expensive to develop new weapons etc, it is a LOT cheaper to allow the USA to pay to develop their own weapons and then after development just use theirs it saves the UK billions.

  • @jamesthedude1977 without US made weapons and defence technology your tiny little shitty island is defenceless..You need C-130's and C-17 to transport your troops Apache helicopters to kill enemy tanks,Trident 2 SLBM for nuclear deterrence,

    Tomahawk Cruise missiles for long range land attack missions,AWACS for early warning,REAPERS for reconnaissance and battlefield intelligence.AMRAAM missiles for Typhoon fighters,anything left I didn't mention?.Oh yes, without the GPS system

    you are blind.

  • @jamesthedude1977 In short, you don't have the capability,the ability and the money to produce all these weapons pal..Be grateful you fucking Limey !

  • each generation of warships is more effective than the previous But Non have the magic appeal of sailing warships Different Era different class

  • magnifico,me encanta,es super hermoso joder

  • I cant believe there concidering building these and selling them to the americans as if they dont have enough of our hardware already.

  • @atomiczombie101 what are you talking about? The Americans build much larger and more effective carriers than this and have no plans on buying any British carriers, and I would bet you that the British use a lot more American hardware than the other way around.

  • @22steve5150 The British invented aircraft carriers, much like a lot of other things. So technically, what a lot of you yanks build is British, actually.

  • @tepc90 what is hard to swallow is the RN will be equiping their new carrier with the us F35 VTO jet But the Harrier was the first one Years B4 anyone else was able to develope this succesfully in reality Britain should have been selling america n others the latest VTO plane instead of Britian buying from the usaVTO fighter jets money n jobs going away for nothing during the Korean war the Mig 15 n us Saber where both using the RR jet engine us gets everything Britain develops but WHY?

  • @polygamous1 are you high or something? Do you know how much American hardware the British armed forces get to use? Do you not think it is advantageous to both sides that they get to share military tech? For your information BAE Systems is one of the companies helping Lockheed to develop the F-35 (as a subcontractor for certain systems), they work to build the same aircraft because the RN and USMC have virtually the same requirements

  • @22steve5150 i was not aware BAE was involve in the F35 but i still believe it would a been better for Britain n British workers if the F35 was developed in Britain with us help instead of the other way round co operation in military hardware is vital now as the cost is astronomical

  • @polygamous1 fair enough.

  • @polygamous1 The USA has come up with around 85% of the development cost for the F35. They call the shots.

  • @spotswood4444 i quess u r right money talks

  • @22steve5150 yeah true, cant trust the yanks to build something we're gonna fly ;)

  • @atomiczombie101 We do not currently have an aircraft carrier, HMS invincible and illustrious has been scrapped, thats why we are building these replacement

  • @ScottishCaledonian

    HMS Illustrious is still serving and will serve until 2014, it is currently acting as an LPH the same as HMS Ocean and will end its service in 2014.

    Call me a liar if you like, its all there in black and white on the Royal Navys website.

  • @HauptmannRob HMS Illustrious is still serving and will serve until 2014,

    There yougo then it is serving until 2014, therefore this is why we are building a replacement

  • @ScottishCaledonian

    i'm not debating anything you said, just rectifying the fact that Lusty is still going on and isn't scrapped yet =]

  • @ScottishCaledonian HMS Illustrious is taking over from HMS Ocean as she is refitted.

  • @ScottishCaledonian HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean are aircraft carriers. They're not as big as the Nimitz Class but they're ACC's never the less

  • @MrXray2011 HMS Illustrious was but HMS Ocean is not an aircraft carrier.

  • @lankinator24 HMS Ocean is an aircraft carrier as she carriers aircraft as her main form of attack!!! She could also, in theory, operate STOVL jets eg Harrier or the F-35B

  • @MrXray2011 She's a helicopter carrier and also operates as the HQ to the marines, but she has no ski-jump so no aircraft could take off

  • @lankinator24 She can operate Harriers and in the future would be able to operate the F-35B. Any ship with a large enough flight deck can operate STOVL jets including HMS Ocean. She is offocially a LHD but Spain has an aircraft carrier that is smaller than HMS Ocean and operates STOVL jets.

    She is an AirCraft Carrier although she is classified as an LHD.

  • @MrXray2011 well we're not getting the F-35B so looks like HMS Ocean is staying as an LHD

  • @lankinator24 Yeah... that she is. There is a possibility that she will be decommissioned if HMS Illustrious would take her place if Lusty is better at being a LHD!

  • sounds good lets build the ships, send them to sea, and fly remote control airplanes of them, hmm lets say for twelve years. then we can buy some real planes for them. and possibly put some real ammunition on them. no David don't be silly, real ammo no that's for people who can afford to put fuel in their aircraft. unfortunately the RN aircraft carriers will have to use fireworks.

    at this point David Cameron walks out of the room and shoots the first person he comes across.

  • will BAE be building the T26?

  • @thethreelions3, Yes with the first due to be laid down around 2018.

  • @TheCharlie359 good it looks like they've done a good job with the astute and T45, and hopefully these.

  • @thethreelions3, Both the T45 and the Astutes are world beaters, the USN admirals who visited Astute in Norfolk Virginia last month were said to be astounded at how capable she is, high praise, an yeah the T26's should be great ships IF they get its capabilities right and IF they build them in sufficient numbers, ideally 16 although i'd bet we only get 12 if that.

  • @TheCharlie359 are they still planning on having an anti-sub and a general use one, or is it all being put into one ship now? And i agree about the numbers, we should have made the 8 T45 planned, and they say 13 yet well probably only get 10ish and i hope all the astute's are made.

  • @thethreelions3, The T26 design (orignally the C1) is planned to be a highly capable anti-sub warship while it will also have new CAMMS for anti air warfare and anti-ship capabilities aswell. The former C2/C3 projects i believe have been merged into a single class built to a highly modular design capable of being fitted out for whatever mission is needed, ie, MCMV, hydrographic research or patrol duties, regards Astute 7 are confirmed in the SDSR to be followed by 4 SSBNS's.

  • @TheCharlie359 the 4 ssbns will replace or serve alongside the vanguard class? i wouldnt want to sell them, a wonder if they could be turned into a hunter-killer class as they will still be very stealthy and seems a waste to scrap them. i cant wait to see the C1 design, the T45, the 2 AC and the astutes all finished.

  • @thethreelions3,The 3 or 4 (decision to be confirmed 2016) SSBN's will replace the Vanguards around 2028, inital gate was granted in 2011 first sub will take 17 years to design and build by which time Vanguard herself will be 35 years old if she is still in service (she was designed with a 25 year lifespan). Its planned the new subs will carry 8 Trident D5/E6 missles and they will probably be based on an enlarged and significantly updated Astute. I look forward to it aswell but its some way off.

  • @TheCharlie359 agreed i bet those will be awesome, but as you say some way off.

  • @thethreelions

    We have never sold any of our Nuclear Submarines to another country, not even our allies. There is the possibility of 1 or 2 Vanguard Class' being kept as 'Special Forces' subs.

  • @MrXray2011 hopefully it would be a waste, scrapping them. although if they are to carry on they will need to be restored to some degree/

  • @thethreelions3 Yeah, but they have all been recently restored and the latest news is that we will keep at least 1. All of the defence cuts have been announced and our debt as a percentage of our GDP is2 going to start going down by late 2013, this coupled with a general increse in the worlds banks should give us the kick start that we need. The government may reorder the 6 cancelled Type 45's, another QE Class, Vanguard Replacement's bought forward and more Type 26's and Astutes

  • @MrXray2011 we can all hope i guess, but tbh i think the government will probably want to avoid spending and becoming in debt again, although would be awesome seeing a full sized and well equiped navy, although there is the army and RAF to think of, and the FIST programme for the army is where our money should go in my opinion, hopefully to equip our entire army with new sights, radios and armour etc.

  • @MrXray2011 With a non nuclear propulsion,these carriers have very limited range.

    Destroy their fuel supply ships,these carriers are sitting ducks for enemy submarines.

    The US Navy nuclear sub force would annihilate these carriers within few hours !

  • @barracuda7018 Oh yeah it was a completely stupid mistake not to make them Nuclear, but when is the US going to attack the UK- we're allies. And the US subs would have to get past the Type 23/ future Class 26) and the Astute Class (best SSN's in the world). I know that they should be nuclear powered.

  • @MrXray2011 The US NAVY has around 60 SSN's in operation and you think the RN can stop them with few SSN's ? But these QE carriers are vulnerable as a result of their limited range . Of course, Barracuda7018's example is fictitious. If a commander of a Sea Wolf class sub gives order to fire a torpedo against a RN ship he would most probably face a mutiny !

  • @FORBAN2 Yeah... I know that the RN has become far to small- I would like to see it at least double in size.