I hope people like David Cameron & Nick Clegg watch this then they will realise how weak & puny the UK feels against the US and in defence & Attack !!! :) :| :(!!!!!.???.
They HAVE to build HMS Queen Elizabeth because they've already bought all the material and two sections of the ship have already arrived at Rosyth ready for assembly . It would probably cost the government more money to cancel the ships that to build them as all the companies in the ACA would need to be compensated. Besides, it's the cost of the planes it's what bleeding the MOD dry, not the boats, so I reckon the'll build HMS Prince of Wales and deploy it as a helicopter carrier like HMS Ocean.
@Shagger This whole helicopter carrier thing has mostly come out of the misunderstanding of the press in only buying enough F-35s to fill out one carrier group (of 40 aircraft), they assume only one carrier will operate them. The thing is though, only one carrier will be active at any one time, so the aircraft will rotate between whichever one is active at that time. Pretty simple. Both will be built to the same specs, both will be full aircraft carriers. No dedicated overgrown LPH or anything.
@rvfharrier U R not far from the truth in ur opinion! The money for building these two carriers is already available. It has 2 b as part of forward planning. Do not ask me how I know!
I have read that Prince of Wales will now be an amphibious commando ship and only fly helicopters. When Queen Elizabeth goes into refit the Royal Navy will have no JSF carrier.
The design of the Queen Elizabeth class is adaptable; my money is the Prince of Wales will be fitted with a ski jump and through progressive refits will become a strike carrier. Only once they are built will their true value be really seen.
@shredjoe1 the mutts nuts???... Britain has always had the most technologically advanced navy!... even today, we are one step ahead of the US navy... im not saying its mightier, yes the US navy is much bigger but we hav the best tech!.. and as for "punching above our weight"!.. dude, we have been doing that for the past millenia, and... its WORKED.. we havent last a major conflict for over a 100 years and havent been invaded since 1066!.. we jus fucking rock!!
@birdboywallis yes agree totally there - I just hope the new carrier's don't get binned in the budget cuts. You seen the Astute attack sub and Type 45 Destroyer awesome!! Can't wait to see what the new frigates will be.
In the mid 1960's politicians scrapped plans to build the last force projection fleet - CVA 01. The result was Argentina invaded the Falklands and too much blood (and money) was shed, because they believed we would/could not defend those who asked for our help.
The same scenario now rises. In these times big projects like CVA are easy to chop.
Sadly mankind will always fight, it is in our nature.
"Walk softly but carry a big stick" - we need CVA.
LOL...Tories increasing the defence budget or even maintaining it. They have got to slash public spending (whichever party is elected) as we are are in debt to the hilt. Defence spending cuts will be very hard to ignore when compared to the HNS and education which are planning to be cut back severly. I think new defence equipment will still come through, but things like selling off some RAF bases, cutting army challenger 2 and army lynx helis numbers, etc,etc will try to be done on the quiet.
zrepeels, in the next election the conservatives will get in and they've openly contested labours constant slashes in the MOD's budget, we were the only country who went to war in 2003 and didn't increase our military budget, the Conservative government fully support our armed forces and its more likely they will increase the budget and build both those carriers & more type 45's than cut the budget.
They are building them. The construction programme is going to create somewhere around 10000 jobs all around Britain, so it can be argued that they can't afford not to.
Once the RN get the new carriers the Fleet Air Arm will have more fighter aircraft than the RAF!! and yet they want to take over the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps because they now their time is numbered now. The RAF are useless and have no purpose and they now it
Ever heard of Wartime Planning? True, the RAF doesn't have much to do in the current scenarios, but if it ever came to war, you'd be toast without a dedicated air force.
the reason why the new carriers are not nuclear powered because there are far too many people out there who are against nuclear power and the green party didnt want to hav neuclear power
Because nuclear reactors are ridiculously expensive to buy, built and maintain. They also tends to require more manpower. If the UK were to make them nuclear they'd have to expand their entire nuclear fuel industry, what with the new power station they're planning and all.
Nuclear powered vessels are OK, as you never have to stop, re-fuel,etc. But while there are people on ships that need food, rest,etc,etc then having a vessel that never needs to go to a port is usless while it has a crew.
But the pricetag on a nuclear powerplant capable of powering an aircraft carrier for 50 years or more is about the same as the what an entire tender fleet costs, and since Britain already has a tender fleet...
I'm fairly certain that the massive cost associated with nuclear propulsion is what made the MoD go with conventional propulsion. Even if you include the cost of fuel and operating the extra tenders and oilers needed, conventional power still comes out ahead.
I know how a turbine works. I also know that it'll be connected to a generator that in turn powers a huge electric engine. This gives them far better control.
No, but that's how they are going to do it on the Queen Elizabeth class. It'll be powered by two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 generator units. The Type 45 destroyer and the Type 23 frigate are powered in a similar fashion.
Because we never equip in large enough numbers! We barely keep what we have flying due to most of it being shit! Its only the lads and lassies that keep them going, believe me I've been there.
because thay dont need to it is the 2nd biggest in world but if thay need to carry more thay can up to 65 but thay also are gona have osprey's on board aswell
The US and the UK are natural allies and are always likely to help each other. We are seperate countries but have so much in common. It is one thing to sometimes criticise each other; that is healthy but we will always work together when there is a threat. I am British I like America as a people and for the good things they have done. They are not always right but who is?
never fear- the sheer mass of the carrier makes even the largest missiles wont make it to the reactors and if they did, good luck getting through the armor - the only ships that could have threated the current carriers are now all museums/scrap. with the instability of the middle east, nuclear seems the safe bet. as for the Yak, it was a cheap Harrier knockoff that the Soviets couldn't get to work to their satisfaction - check dates narrator89
the CVF won't have to stop more than the nimitz. it would be able to go forever because they could do in voyage refueling. However the bonus of a nuclear reactor is over time you won't have to refuel so if there are war against a coalition of middle eastern countries you won't have to pay loads for petrol.
incorrect, Harrier design goes back into the late 1950's Hawker p.1127 was flying before Yak-36 was designed Yak-36(soviets first VTOL prototype) used the same technology harrier did but the Russians copied it not the other way round, however F-35's VL is blatantly stolen from the Yak-141
the JSF is cool, but still, the F-22 is till top of the class right now, stealthy, fast and super maneuverable, the JSF, dual intake, single engine aircraft has many flaws, better hope you dont get a flame out in that baby!!
right if yoou look at 0.58 secs it say *jOINT* THAT MEANS ITS BOTH USA and british hes making a good point the person that made this the f35 i british and usa but the f22 is usa alone (or if they having a rase to build the f22 to see who has the best teck) so ha ha lol
we all ways beetan them is were the waves came into it if my facts are right.. is that the rench i think went up the sea when the sea was goin down wards it made there ships more slower and we could catch them up i think im right i watched it on the history channle
I couldn`t help myself. Britain would have fallen in 40 would it not been for material support from India, then unconquered S.E. Asia and yes the U.S. We had been supplying the big island for some time (mid 39) because we did know the fight was coming but many didnt want to suffer the losses of the Great War. Not to take away anything from the heroic stand in 40. the west paid a price for WWII. Russia paid in blood.
well to be fare we could wipe out 150 million americans with our nukes (50% of them) and they could wipe out 60 million of us brits (99.9%) of us so we still would be a pretty strong enemy no matter what!
History has shown, if you choose to mess with Britain... you'd best be ready or have something up your sleave. The mentality of the people in Britain in times of war has shown us to have a no surrender attitude, we don't know how to lie down, and never surrender... unless made extinct.
The same happened during the Battle of Britain, again we were underestimated and the American Ambassador told the American President that Britain would fall in 48 hours, in fact we were the first country to deal Germany a defeat in battle, a country that prided itself on its airforce... Germany then tried to attack our shipping supply lines and once again, although great loss of life was inccured, we sunk their best ship the Bismark.
The Spanish Empire was at the peak of its power and again, under the odds we proved a great nation in times of war, and for a small country a dangerous one to piss off.
No country in the world would ever mess with Britain or America, they'd have to be fcukin stupid to even try and take us on. America and Britain are like family, mess with either one of us and your dead. Don't tell the Americans this, but we are still the no.1 world power!
lol, I have nothing against Britain but you gotta realize that a national super power is measured in how great its navy is. The US, CURRENTLY, has 10 nuclear super carriers in service, with 1 Ford class under development, and 2 more planned after that. Britain has only 3 carriers, 1 of which is in reserve. 1 QE class will replace the decommissioned HMS Invincible by 2014, but that will still be 6 carriers less than the US. I think saying you're the no.1 world power is a little far fetched ;)
Not at all... the Spanish Armada sailed on July 19th 1588. With a fleet of 130 ships - including 22 fighting galleons. Figures do vary but it is thought that only 67 ships out of 130 returned to Spain -- a loss rate of nearly 50%. Over 20,000 Spanish sailors and soldiers were killed. Throughout the whole campaign, the English lost no ships and only 100 men in battle.
because the Queen Elizabeth didnt count the english losses. 100 english and 20.000 spaniards and other catholic europeans? Britain was a brave defense against Napoleon or Hitler, but was the entire continent, and, over all, Russia, that defeated both dictators.
Not true... Russia didn't even come into the war until after the battle of Britain. Our tiny island took on the full brunt and might of the German airforce. Any other country i.e. France would have surrendered! If Britain would have fallen the war would have been over... simple as that, Germany would have turned its full attention and Air Force on Russia and marched all the way to Moscow... whilst missing the very cold winter, The cold weather saved Russia.
I think because the french have been invaded many times and had many wars fought on their soil they wouldn't have defnded their land as much as the brits would, we haven't been invaded for 1,000 years how can any other country say that!!!
Also America never had single bomb dropped on them. We saw what they were like over 9/11 (still crying today), imagine USA bombed night+day like Britain.
They'd throw the towel in within a month. Imagine Hitler ruling all oil + mineral reserves in Britain, Europe + North Africa - Imagine the size of the rockets fired at Russia and also America who stayed out of it for 3 years.
USA in 1939 (not 42) could have reduced the British dead, we are a brave nation.
crying? not forgetting is not the same as crying my friend.. as for 1939, sure we could have rolled in with you, but if you look back to then you will see that france alone had more strength than germany did- most americans of the day thought that Britain and France had Germany dead to rights, it started as a European war, Hilter gauged the early situation (war weariness of europe) correctly..lucky for all of us he was a military dumbass and didnt listen to his generals.
France folded because they believe in the fortified line they had.. the germans started fighting in a whole new way - fast and light...if britain was attached to the mainland i doubt she would have held off the blitz- neither would have the US- we were horrificly unprepared..we both where saved by water.
I like that statement--it's pretty clever. "Saved by water." :) Mind if I use it some time? As brave and as fearsome warriors as the stout British were, they simply couldn't have stood against the Nazi regime (in my humble opinion) had their not been a channel of water seperating them. I highly doubt that the United States would have been turned on its belly, but it would have suffered catastrophic losses to say the absolute least. But in the end, we pooled our resources...and we won. :)
Another key battle involved the 8th Army against Rommel... The British and its Empire were vastly outnumbered, but we turned the battle and defeated the most powerful tank division in the world ever. It was the SAS team that did the real damage, a victory none the less. Again if this battle was lost, war over Germany win.
As for English losses against the Spanish Armada, history records the English Sailors were left to starve on the ships and later died, an order from the queen herself. We got a bit of luck against the Spainish, but what really scuppered the Spanish was the dirty fight we brought, bad planning and an erractic sea. 50% of Spanish ships were lost as they tried to escape and found later on shores of Scotland and Ireland.
they were left to die cos they had one of them disease things and they couldn't do anything about it, they were only anchored a few miles off shore but it was sort of quarentined.
Not at all... the Spanish Armada sailed on July 19th 1588. With a fleet of 130 ships - including 22 fighting galleons. Figures do vary but it is thought that only 67 ships out of 130 returned to Spain -- a loss rate of nearly 50%. Over 20,000 Spanish sailors and soldiers were killed. Throughout the whole campaign, the English lost no ships and only 100 men in battle.
As for the Napoleonic wars, I know very little about this... but ask yourself this, without Britian, would Europe have been victorious??? Now I'm not suggesting Britian is this all singing all dancing nation that can do no wrong, but simply that in times of war, we come together as a people, and like other great nations manage to find a way to prevail against all odds. No matter its size, no country could ever take Britain, you'd have to wipe out every last one of us to even stand a chance.
These bad boy's will go a long way towards restoring my jilted British pride, some thing we can all look to in a positive light, better than opening the paper to read about another stabbing! support our troops!
Just ignore him. I personally don't mind if it's British or U.S. technology that's making the world a little safer--we're brothers anyway, in my opinion. The United States Navy and the Royal Navy are the two most innovative, powerful, plentiful navies in the world. To challenge either is folly--especially considering that to war with one, is to war with the other. The States bring the power, and Great Britian bring the pride. Lots of love from your neighbor across the Atlantic. :)
no no no, i think yours will be more powerful, like the oprah winfrey of the seas, while ours will be like the megan fox and jessica alba - we should call them that lol!
All modern supercarriers will use nuclear energy, enabling "limitless" travel across the seas. Refueling once every, what is it, forty years? I don't remember. Food and other supplies not directly related to combat are stored on a cargo ship which tags along with a carrier's strike group. The Nimitz strike groups operate this way, and it's a safe bet that the Ford class carriers and Great Britian's new carriers will operate in the same way.
They do look very... well...next generation! As for the cost , Tony Blair recently surrendered to the EU the 3 billion Pounds per annum rebate that Thatcher negotiated, and I understand Nulab are doubling the 500 million in aid that they give to the Taliban ...er sorry...Pakistan.
I think I need to read 'Atlas Shrugged' again.
At least John Galt could look forward to the prospect of a better world.
Yes. Never ceases to amaze me how UK politicians get away with being so patronizing and contemptuous - as if foreigners were inherently incapable of building their own schools and hospitals if they so desired.
no but abit more money helps. only o.5% of GDP, why don't we help? stupid prick them people need help more than any1 else so we shud give them money if they need it not a matter of pride but of living or dieing!
Instead of more government aid and planning, they need to create and sustain an environment conducive to wealth creation. This requires free enterprise, secure property rights, contract enforcement and the rule of law. Every one of these attributes is sorely lacking in the Third World and none of these will be helped by foreign aid. At best, transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries destroys marginal producers. At worst, it empowers tyrants.
yeah yeah yeah, wateva you just don't wanna see your money go 2 other ppl, money helps no matter wat you can say or do, the money given changes lives, it is up to the government of that country to decide wat to do with the money or else they will never be able to succeed and all wat you said is not based on any fact wat so ever!
Clearly, you are unacquainted with 'Government against the Economy,' by George Reisman. The point is: money in wrong hands makes things far worse in the long term. The best and most complete presentation of the science of economics can be found in Reisman's 'Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics,' but Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt is a good introduction for those unfamiliar with this important subject.
You give them money then they buy weapons with it and the people don't see it...and you are right these places can sort themselves out in time. It must have been very embarrasing when it was realised that Yasser Arafat had over 1 billion stashed away...The money we give to the EU is daft...Maggie was right on that one.
Ummmh. Which aircraft will fly from them ??..Which ships will give the protection to the carriers ?? What use are they in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan??
the F35's will fly from them - STOVL, they are arguably teh most advanced planes built for use on a carrier. the type 45 will protect them - arguably the best destroyer in the world. the type 23 frigates will and the future surface combatant. they provide more capabilities such as transport for troops and major planning can b carried out from them in a safe environmen. don't know if you know m8 but the planes can travel like 3,000km so wen the ship is docked they can be use in afghanistan + iraq
Ah yes..Thanks for that..looks they work out at about £43 million each. Yes this is the version that had the weight problem and they have reduced its payload by half...If this is the F35B variant and has only a 2,000km range...For some reason the RN are not buying the F35C ( carrier version)which has the greater range..I think the UK RN have planned to buy 60.
no m8 they had to reduce the weight by 150 kg not half the weight lol, 2000km-3,000km still can do harm quite far away from the carrier! they are expensive but so were the harriers. these are the first supersonic STOVL owned by the RN, and we took the STOVL cos we lead the way in STOVL tech so would be easier for us to change them/fix them etc and they are buying 138 lol wouldn't work out having 60 aircraft but having 36 on the carriers at all times!!!!?
I was meaning the weapons load. Because it is stealth the weapons are carried in board...Yes you are right the order for the RAF and RN is 138 scaled back from 150..
why is it that wen the uk economy was in recession, and poverty and unemployment was high we spent a ton on defense and now we have a higher GDP per capita than the usa do we spend relatively nothing?! anyone agree that while we have the money we should deliver safety all over the world not just 4 the people of the UK like in Zimbabwe thats wat the uk is about 'policing the world' so why stop?! no longer do we need the tools to finish the job we have the tools so lets do the job!
We have more people now living in the UK Gordon brown thinks that it's a better idea to out out over 26million a year on family allowance for children that dont even reside in the UK than pay for defence equipment to protect our country and our troops. Says a lot about what the british government thinks about Britain and its citizens.
oh yeah cos 800 million quid to india or equal to £2.50 per child in India is sooo much! 800 million quid is equal to £12 per person in the UK! OMG that is wat is making this country poor - oh, no, wait we are fukin richer than ever!!!
Im not saying its making the country poor Im saying that the governments priorities are all wrong and using this as an example. There is no need to be obnoxious about it. The country is rich and isn't investing the money the way it should be, which is health, education and defense.
I did't say it was wrong but those children also receive help from there own country. But think of it this way, there are elderly in this country only get £200 to heat there homes for an entire winter, soldiers widows who've been asked to return their husbands month's wages straight after they've died for their country, and thousands of families living below the poverty line, those people paid into the system for years and the govt aren't helping them, they aren't paying to improve their lives.
We do have the largest defence budget in the world after the USA so they do spend alot. I think we need more though around £170 billion is spent on people who do not work in this country that could be money that goes in to building more carriers like this one and investing in more air craft and more equipment. I would say we needed it with the way the world is going. Perhaps raise the pay of troops to encourage more to sign up.
Also I wasn't referring to the children in India I know that the people in India need a lot of help. That it's government would rather spend money on weapons than help its residents, my only hope for them is that the money given to them actually improves their quality of life.
Seriously, you need to relax. Go to a French website looking for a fight. The Brits have been one of our very few trustworthy allies over the years. You're making us all look like asses, and I wont stand for it. Oh and the comment about how if you saw one of the posters in person, they would only have three seconds to live, get real. With my nine you would only have one second. Get lost or get with the program. The UK is our sacrosanct ally!
Allow me to appologize on behalf of the American people for my fellow countryman's (HUNDLEYGUY95) rude and condescending comments. America values our relationship with the UK very much. We speak the same language, and share many of the same values. While it is true that with the influx of Muslim extremists in your country we have grown somewhat weary, we will never turn our backs on you. You're a damn good lot, just stop letting radicals immigrate to your country, please.
Thank you for you kind words of support. Their are those in this world who would just love to see the USA and UK fall out with each other. Together we are strong and unbeatable. When the present Government gets the huge mighty boot it deserves from the electorate then you will see things change regarding radicals entering our country. The UK is building modern powerful ships, but I would like the RN to triple in size, with a mimimum 6 large carriers, and 30 type 45 Destroyers.
the RN said they dont need to triple in size. there ships are caperble of destroying anything that comes near them. take the type 45 destroyer has a sylo deck with 45 missiles in it. thats 45 targets every 6 seconds with its auto realoader. thats why its the most powerful destroyer in the world. thats 45 enermy ships per reloader
The way for the carriers to be most effective would be to carry F-35's for STOL, but also have catapults and arrestor cables so aircraft such as the eurofighter typhoon could also be on board, although the eurofighter cant match the stealth of the F-35,the eurofighters manouverability is unmatched worldwide
deffinately, but it's not really a fair comparison, not because F-35 is 15 years more advanced, but because F-35 is optimised for ground attack, more of a strike fighter than a true multirole, and Typhoon is a fighter it would be nice to see both planes abord the CVF's F-35 for strike/CAS/SEAD typhoon for AD/air supremacy, navalised typhoon with improved avionics, radar, arrestor hook and a more capable vectorable engines to increase payload/speed and shorter takeoff's
Hey shagger, Its a waste of our money GB dont need global power projection any more. We just follow the Yanks and therefore can rely on their carriers. Better to spend our money on DSS to look after our british scroungers!
typical of many europeans, stand behind we americans and cower, you know that if britain had a full sized carreir falklands wouldnt have happened, and we americans are tired of having to put up with do your shit with our carriers, you got the resoiurces, build supercarriers yourself
op desert storm, USA had 1,376 aircraft to the UKs 69, USA deployed 575,000 to 697,000 men, UK only 43,000 to 45,000 men, op iraqi freedom, comprised of 300,000 men at the sart, mostly americans, and about 177,000 current, about 150,000 of which are americans
Fuck you. The contract is singed for, they are going to be built and I hope you are in the doll que while I'm building it. And America an lick clean the decks of CVF after licking clean my Scotch balls. I couldn't care less if it's a bad idea or not (You're wrong, our carriars need updated), It's given me a for well over a decade and possibly longer than that.
You dont know much about Govmt. contracts mate! They can cancel at will with no penalty! Then you can use your foul mouth comments to your mates in the dole queue at Quensferry!!
Dont rejoice prematurely. Our government has got a poor record for completing military projects. They will never afford to operate two of these carriers. If they get finished one will always be in mothballs/reserve just wait and see. Waste of money really we wouldnt use them independently of the USA in any case!
The CVF is a masterpiece! In terms of size it's bigger than every other aircraft carrier apart from America's Nimitz class, but it's fast and more powerful than the Nimitz so can be deployed quicker and with 40 of the new F-35's, the first plane ever to go supersonic then land vertically, better armed to. I'm one of the 55 apprentices taken on by Babcock marine to blot the 4 mega-sections and flight deck together in Rosyth and I cant wait to see it all come together.
yea i agree wirth you on all but that one comment on this being more powerful than the nimitzs, they are equl, neither is more powerful, and by the time this comes into commision we will have the GERALD R. FORD class coming in, with almost double the aircraft capacity of a nimtz, 140 planes max, most of which will also be F35s, QE and nimitz are on par, GERALD is more powerful and stealthly too
Anyway, as for the French - they might not even get their carrier. Look it up. Secondly, when we get these babies, the UK will be the only country to deploy multiple large carriers apart from the US. Oh, and Japan doesn't even have an aircraft carrier - or nukes.
So Doubledeckertaco, I suggest you take a closer look at the British Armed Forces before you say that they're crap. Also, look up something called the 'special relationhip'
This has been flagged as spam show
I hope people like David Cameron & Nick Clegg watch this then they will realise how weak & puny the UK feels against the US and in defence & Attack !!! :) :| :(!!!!!.???.
TobyParr 3 months ago in playlist More videos from tazong
Comment removed
TobyParr 3 months ago in playlist More videos from tazong
This has been flagged as spam show
SIMPLY`;:COPY,':&,,`PASTE.:;
ＷＷＷ.ＷＡＴＣＨＦＵＬＬＭＯＶＩＥ.ＴＫ
SIMPLY'`,COPY'.:&'.`PASTE'.'
fultonmatthewfultonm 9 months ago
i hate that, the ships are not 65000 tones, they are 65000 TONNES, they are 72300 REAL tons (short tons.) i hate the "metricisation" of this country.
citizenerased1992 10 months ago
U.K. and U.S. FTW
Laserineer 1 year ago 2
They HAVE to build HMS Queen Elizabeth because they've already bought all the material and two sections of the ship have already arrived at Rosyth ready for assembly . It would probably cost the government more money to cancel the ships that to build them as all the companies in the ACA would need to be compensated. Besides, it's the cost of the planes it's what bleeding the MOD dry, not the boats, so I reckon the'll build HMS Prince of Wales and deploy it as a helicopter carrier like HMS Ocean.
Shagger 1 year ago
@Shagger This whole helicopter carrier thing has mostly come out of the misunderstanding of the press in only buying enough F-35s to fill out one carrier group (of 40 aircraft), they assume only one carrier will operate them. The thing is though, only one carrier will be active at any one time, so the aircraft will rotate between whichever one is active at that time. Pretty simple. Both will be built to the same specs, both will be full aircraft carriers. No dedicated overgrown LPH or anything.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier U R not far from the truth in ur opinion! The money for building these two carriers is already available. It has 2 b as part of forward planning. Do not ask me how I know!
ericartwo1 1 year ago
I have read that Prince of Wales will now be an amphibious commando ship and only fly helicopters. When Queen Elizabeth goes into refit the Royal Navy will have no JSF carrier.
zrepeels 2 years ago
The design of the Queen Elizabeth class is adaptable; my money is the Prince of Wales will be fitted with a ski jump and through progressive refits will become a strike carrier. Only once they are built will their true value be really seen.
shredjoe1 2 years ago
@zrepeels hope that isnt true! both carriers should be capable of carrying the JSF , after all HMS Ocean is relatively new and does a good job
chizz32 2 years ago
Lets be honest here; the Queen Elizabeth class carriers here are the mutts nuts and as always will, like Great Britain, punch way above her weight.
shredjoe1 2 years ago
@shredjoe1 the mutts nuts???... Britain has always had the most technologically advanced navy!... even today, we are one step ahead of the US navy... im not saying its mightier, yes the US navy is much bigger but we hav the best tech!.. and as for "punching above our weight"!.. dude, we have been doing that for the past millenia, and... its WORKED.. we havent last a major conflict for over a 100 years and havent been invaded since 1066!.. we jus fucking rock!!
birdboywallis 1 year ago
@birdboywallis yes agree totally there - I just hope the new carrier's don't get binned in the budget cuts. You seen the Astute attack sub and Type 45 Destroyer awesome!! Can't wait to see what the new frigates will be.
shredjoe1 1 year ago
The new carriers look superb!!
But the ski jump might be eliminated.
zucoy21z89 2 years ago
are the planes - x-35's, if so where did they come from? they look like f-22's
daystate12345678 2 years ago
In the mid 1960's politicians scrapped plans to build the last force projection fleet - CVA 01. The result was Argentina invaded the Falklands and too much blood (and money) was shed, because they believed we would/could not defend those who asked for our help.
The same scenario now rises. In these times big projects like CVA are easy to chop.
Sadly mankind will always fight, it is in our nature.
"Walk softly but carry a big stick" - we need CVA.
..and call one of em' ARK ROYAL
shredjoe1 2 years ago 5
LOL...Tories increasing the defence budget or even maintaining it. They have got to slash public spending (whichever party is elected) as we are are in debt to the hilt. Defence spending cuts will be very hard to ignore when compared to the HNS and education which are planning to be cut back severly. I think new defence equipment will still come through, but things like selling off some RAF bases, cutting army challenger 2 and army lynx helis numbers, etc,etc will try to be done on the quiet.
casino335 2 years ago
Yes, getting put together finally at Rosyth Dockyard, Scotland
chizz32 2 years ago
Fitting ships for our navy. I hope more type 45's are built for them though.
Saxe333 2 years ago
yea 6 will be built. one 45 is better than all other 42 in service
prestonc1992 2 years ago
The Type 45s are armed with nothing but 4.5inch gun atm, missiles don't work :/
Longs81 2 years ago
First steel on the hull cut today, and the bow is also well underway too.
madbob73 2 years ago
zrepeels, in the next election the conservatives will get in and they've openly contested labours constant slashes in the MOD's budget, we were the only country who went to war in 2003 and didn't increase our military budget, the Conservative government fully support our armed forces and its more likely they will increase the budget and build both those carriers & more type 45's than cut the budget.
TowerHamletsNeil 2 years ago
@TowerHamletsNeil. Then before the second ones built Labour or Lib/Dem's could be back in to change it again...wtf!
Next could be Rafael's ordered from the French to make up the plane numbers ha ha!!
zucoy21z89 2 years ago
I'd love to see these built. I know all the reasons they won't be cancelled, but I reckon the next government will cancel one or both.
zrepeels 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jingaliner 2 years ago
are they still going to get built or not because of the economy?
seano322 2 years ago
They are building them. The construction programme is going to create somewhere around 10000 jobs all around Britain, so it can be argued that they can't afford not to.
chrthiel 2 years ago
building what? :)
bakedpork 2 years ago
Once the RN get the new carriers the Fleet Air Arm will have more fighter aircraft than the RAF!! and yet they want to take over the Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps because they now their time is numbered now. The RAF are useless and have no purpose and they now it
Jono7531 2 years ago
Useless eh?Who do you think carries out all those air superiority missions that makes it possible for the AAC to do their job?
chrthiel 2 years ago
air superiority missions?? where ?
Jono7531 2 years ago
Ever heard of Wartime Planning? True, the RAF doesn't have much to do in the current scenarios, but if it ever came to war, you'd be toast without a dedicated air force.
chrthiel 2 years ago
The New Carriers will outclass anything the Americans have AT THE MOMENT!! Apart from size and amount of aircraft and men
Jono7531 2 years ago
the reason why the new carriers are not nuclear powered because there are far too many people out there who are against nuclear power and the green party didnt want to hav neuclear power
mclaren93sdt 3 years ago
While that probably is part of the reason, I think it more to do with the huge costs associated with running a nuclear power plant.
chrthiel 3 years ago
why cant it be nuclear to be honest we behind
Phil1796 3 years ago
Because nuclear reactors are ridiculously expensive to buy, built and maintain. They also tends to require more manpower. If the UK were to make them nuclear they'd have to expand their entire nuclear fuel industry, what with the new power station they're planning and all.
chrthiel 3 years ago
Nuclear powered vessels are OK, as you never have to stop, re-fuel,etc. But while there are people on ships that need food, rest,etc,etc then having a vessel that never needs to go to a port is usless while it has a crew.
VillaMan08 3 years ago
But the pricetag on a nuclear powerplant capable of powering an aircraft carrier for 50 years or more is about the same as the what an entire tender fleet costs, and since Britain already has a tender fleet...
chrthiel 3 years ago
It maybe cheaper running costs, but in the long run it cost a lot more to dispose of Nuclear waste.And not just enviromently either.
VillaMan08 3 years ago
Since Britain doesn't have to build a tender fleet, they can use that money to run it.
chrthiel 3 years ago
the environment. thats probably why its not nuclear.
simply stupid.
theGoldenAgeOfBoredo 2 years ago
I'm fairly certain that the massive cost associated with nuclear propulsion is what made the MoD go with conventional propulsion. Even if you include the cost of fuel and operating the extra tenders and oilers needed, conventional power still comes out ahead.
chrthiel 2 years ago
if ti comes to costs..why not stick with the spitfire, instead having F35, EF2000, Tornados and harriers?^^
but its good that its creating jobs (refering to your comment above)..reminds me of hitlers ways xD
- not to ba taken in a negativa way: after all, adolf got germany out of a crisis (and in to a next one. but we shouldt do the same^^)
theGoldenAgeOfBoredo 2 years ago
sry: not you are stupid, but the greens^^
theGoldenAgeOfBoredo 2 years ago
I am all for carriers
but y oh y does can it only carry 40 aircraft
US Carrier...90,0000 and around 80-90 aircraft
French Carrier....45,000 and 40 aircraft
UK carrier..65,000 and 40 aircraft!!
how can it be 20,000 tonnes bigger and carry the same aircraft??? y is it not carrying 60 aircraft?
AndrewMudie 3 years ago
Not sure why, but the Charles de Gaulle is nuclear powered, whereas the Queen Elizabeth will be diesel-electric.
chrthiel 3 years ago
They will be powered by gas turbines not diesel-electric....
Longs81 3 years ago
Turbine-Electric then.
chrthiel 3 years ago
It's not turbine electric either... why are you adding electric onto the end? Do you even know how a gas turbine works?
Longs81 3 years ago
I know how a turbine works. I also know that it'll be connected to a generator that in turn powers a huge electric engine. This gives them far better control.
chrthiel 3 years ago
That's not the way the Royal Navy uses gas turbines on it's ships. They arn't used to drive a generator that then powers an electric motor.
Longs81 3 years ago
No, but that's how they are going to do it on the Queen Elizabeth class. It'll be powered by two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 generator units. The Type 45 destroyer and the Type 23 frigate are powered in a similar fashion.
chrthiel 3 years ago
The Type 23s use a diesel-electric system for quiet ASW operations and their gas turbines for normal operation.
Longs81 3 years ago
Right you are. Missed the CODLAG when I read the article.
Anyway, the Type 45 uses an IEP system and the Queen Elizabeth is going to be using a IFEP system.
chrthiel 3 years ago
Because the British prefer STOVL and will carry F35 -B Variants.
madbob73 3 years ago
Because we never equip in large enough numbers! We barely keep what we have flying due to most of it being shit! Its only the lads and lassies that keep them going, believe me I've been there.
jbateson101 3 years ago
actualy the original number was 36..now apparnetly full load will carry 50 it just depends on the planes they choose and the configuration
jamescross91 3 years ago
because thay dont need to it is the 2nd biggest in world but if thay need to carry more thay can up to 65 but thay also are gona have osprey's on board aswell
wiganerrmc 3 years ago
bout time the UK was given some carriers worthy of the men and women who serve on them!!
Although Invincible is a legend!!
5pav 3 years ago
at 3:10, it isn't the f-35 lightening, it is the rubbish Boeing version, the x-32.
slipersox 3 years ago
wow...those new carriers are amazing. huge. how many fighters are they going to carry?
BritishFalklands 3 years ago
it's about time! you brits almost invented the term "blue water navy". can't be leaving this duty completely to us, you know
kapute2 3 years ago 5
Which is why we had to rescue your pathetic nation from the germans twice. French people make me physically sick.
JoseyLondon 3 years ago 2
here here!
jamescross91 3 years ago
The US and the UK are natural allies and are always likely to help each other. We are seperate countries but have so much in common. It is one thing to sometimes criticise each other; that is healthy but we will always work together when there is a threat. I am British I like America as a people and for the good things they have done. They are not always right but who is?
bobmorganz 3 years ago 2
nuclear powered carriers are a bad idea hit them in port and give every 1 in 30 miles cancer bad idea if u ask me
doysh121 3 years ago
never fear- the sheer mass of the carrier makes even the largest missiles wont make it to the reactors and if they did, good luck getting through the armor - the only ships that could have threated the current carriers are now all museums/scrap. with the instability of the middle east, nuclear seems the safe bet. as for the Yak, it was a cheap Harrier knockoff that the Soviets couldn't get to work to their satisfaction - check dates narrator89
steelface581 3 years ago
nuclear carriers have: unlimited range, and an unlimited power supply, moreover these carriers are normally in the middle of the ocean
wanaplayrough 3 years ago
the CVF won't have to stop more than the nimitz. it would be able to go forever because they could do in voyage refueling. However the bonus of a nuclear reactor is over time you won't have to refuel so if there are war against a coalition of middle eastern countries you won't have to pay loads for petrol.
leonleonceur 3 years ago
how long do u think it takes to refule an aircraft carrier?
wanaplayrough 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Harrier + F35 = Yak 35
They both 'lent' technology from the Russians.
narrator89 3 years ago
incorrect, Harrier design goes back into the late 1950's Hawker p.1127 was flying before Yak-36 was designed Yak-36(soviets first VTOL prototype) used the same technology harrier did but the Russians copied it not the other way round, however F-35's VL is blatantly stolen from the Yak-141
AerospaceEngineer90 3 years ago
The yak was a panic response to harrier concepts
leonleonceur 3 years ago
the JSF is cool, but still, the F-22 is till top of the class right now, stealthy, fast and super maneuverable, the JSF, dual intake, single engine aircraft has many flaws, better hope you dont get a flame out in that baby!!
wilz1122 3 years ago
That ship will be sweet when/if it gets built
rodbobthebrit 3 years ago
RU, aliens or Vulcans because you sure write as if you are from another planet.
Er, cause 'dat shuip and aercwarft aer gud but i am a bitt fick' learn English you stupid cunts!
archer064 3 years ago
sorry for my spelling mistakes
golderlight 3 years ago
right if yoou look at 0.58 secs it say *jOINT* THAT MEANS ITS BOTH USA and british hes making a good point the person that made this the f35 i british and usa but the f22 is usa alone (or if they having a rase to build the f22 to see who has the best teck) so ha ha lol
golderlight 3 years ago
we all ways beetan them is were the waves came into it if my facts are right.. is that the rench i think went up the sea when the sea was goin down wards it made there ships more slower and we could catch them up i think im right i watched it on the history channle
golderlight 3 years ago
I couldn`t help myself. Britain would have fallen in 40 would it not been for material support from India, then unconquered S.E. Asia and yes the U.S. We had been supplying the big island for some time (mid 39) because we did know the fight was coming but many didnt want to suffer the losses of the Great War. Not to take away anything from the heroic stand in 40. the west paid a price for WWII. Russia paid in blood.
zempke 3 years ago
yep lucky we owned or made those countries in advance, eh?
1MrTrap1 3 years ago
Cant wait....UK is back!!:}
devilonwizz2 3 years ago
Despite everything I've said... I'd never wanna piss off America either.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
well to be fare we could wipe out 150 million americans with our nukes (50% of them) and they could wipe out 60 million of us brits (99.9%) of us so we still would be a pretty strong enemy no matter what!
numba1danman 3 years ago
History has shown, if you choose to mess with Britain... you'd best be ready or have something up your sleave. The mentality of the people in Britain in times of war has shown us to have a no surrender attitude, we don't know how to lie down, and never surrender... unless made extinct.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
The same happened during the Battle of Britain, again we were underestimated and the American Ambassador told the American President that Britain would fall in 48 hours, in fact we were the first country to deal Germany a defeat in battle, a country that prided itself on its airforce... Germany then tried to attack our shipping supply lines and once again, although great loss of life was inccured, we sunk their best ship the Bismark.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
The Spanish Empire was at the peak of its power and again, under the odds we proved a great nation in times of war, and for a small country a dangerous one to piss off.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
No country in the world would ever mess with Britain or America, they'd have to be fcukin stupid to even try and take us on. America and Britain are like family, mess with either one of us and your dead. Don't tell the Americans this, but we are still the no.1 world power!
ukmarkh 3 years ago
lol, I have nothing against Britain but you gotta realize that a national super power is measured in how great its navy is. The US, CURRENTLY, has 10 nuclear super carriers in service, with 1 Ford class under development, and 2 more planned after that. Britain has only 3 carriers, 1 of which is in reserve. 1 QE class will replace the decommissioned HMS Invincible by 2014, but that will still be 6 carriers less than the US. I think saying you're the no.1 world power is a little far fetched ;)
zangalus2005 3 years ago
Not at all... the Spanish Armada sailed on July 19th 1588. With a fleet of 130 ships - including 22 fighting galleons. Figures do vary but it is thought that only 67 ships out of 130 returned to Spain -- a loss rate of nearly 50%. Over 20,000 Spanish sailors and soldiers were killed. Throughout the whole campaign, the English lost no ships and only 100 men in battle.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
because the Queen Elizabeth didnt count the english losses. 100 english and 20.000 spaniards and other catholic europeans? Britain was a brave defense against Napoleon or Hitler, but was the entire continent, and, over all, Russia, that defeated both dictators.
telkines 3 years ago
Not true... Russia didn't even come into the war until after the battle of Britain. Our tiny island took on the full brunt and might of the German airforce. Any other country i.e. France would have surrendered! If Britain would have fallen the war would have been over... simple as that, Germany would have turned its full attention and Air Force on Russia and marched all the way to Moscow... whilst missing the very cold winter, The cold weather saved Russia.
ukmarkh 3 years ago 2
I think because the french have been invaded many times and had many wars fought on their soil they wouldn't have defnded their land as much as the brits would, we haven't been invaded for 1,000 years how can any other country say that!!!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Hear Hear, U speak the truth.
Also America never had single bomb dropped on them. We saw what they were like over 9/11 (still crying today), imagine USA bombed night+day like Britain.
They'd throw the towel in within a month. Imagine Hitler ruling all oil + mineral reserves in Britain, Europe + North Africa - Imagine the size of the rockets fired at Russia and also America who stayed out of it for 3 years.
USA in 1939 (not 42) could have reduced the British dead, we are a brave nation.
MegaBrits 3 years ago
crying? not forgetting is not the same as crying my friend.. as for 1939, sure we could have rolled in with you, but if you look back to then you will see that france alone had more strength than germany did- most americans of the day thought that Britain and France had Germany dead to rights, it started as a European war, Hilter gauged the early situation (war weariness of europe) correctly..lucky for all of us he was a military dumbass and didnt listen to his generals.
steelface581 3 years ago
France folded because they believe in the fortified line they had.. the germans started fighting in a whole new way - fast and light...if britain was attached to the mainland i doubt she would have held off the blitz- neither would have the US- we were horrificly unprepared..we both where saved by water.
steelface581 3 years ago
I like that statement--it's pretty clever. "Saved by water." :) Mind if I use it some time? As brave and as fearsome warriors as the stout British were, they simply couldn't have stood against the Nazi regime (in my humble opinion) had their not been a channel of water seperating them. I highly doubt that the United States would have been turned on its belly, but it would have suffered catastrophic losses to say the absolute least. But in the end, we pooled our resources...and we won. :)
RSking1 3 years ago
Another key battle involved the 8th Army against Rommel... The British and its Empire were vastly outnumbered, but we turned the battle and defeated the most powerful tank division in the world ever. It was the SAS team that did the real damage, a victory none the less. Again if this battle was lost, war over Germany win.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
As for English losses against the Spanish Armada, history records the English Sailors were left to starve on the ships and later died, an order from the queen herself. We got a bit of luck against the Spainish, but what really scuppered the Spanish was the dirty fight we brought, bad planning and an erractic sea. 50% of Spanish ships were lost as they tried to escape and found later on shores of Scotland and Ireland.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
they were left to die cos they had one of them disease things and they couldn't do anything about it, they were only anchored a few miles off shore but it was sort of quarentined.
numba1danman 3 years ago
Not at all... the Spanish Armada sailed on July 19th 1588. With a fleet of 130 ships - including 22 fighting galleons. Figures do vary but it is thought that only 67 ships out of 130 returned to Spain -- a loss rate of nearly 50%. Over 20,000 Spanish sailors and soldiers were killed. Throughout the whole campaign, the English lost no ships and only 100 men in battle.
ukmarkh 3 years ago
As for the Napoleonic wars, I know very little about this... but ask yourself this, without Britian, would Europe have been victorious??? Now I'm not suggesting Britian is this all singing all dancing nation that can do no wrong, but simply that in times of war, we come together as a people, and like other great nations manage to find a way to prevail against all odds. No matter its size, no country could ever take Britain, you'd have to wipe out every last one of us to even stand a chance.
ukmarkh 3 years ago 2
as well as our new ships which panes have we bought? 1 of the new american models...in bulk for the carrier
britishgoose01 3 years ago
These bad boy's will go a long way towards restoring my jilted British pride, some thing we can all look to in a positive light, better than opening the paper to read about another stabbing! support our troops!
codcutter 3 years ago
I'm an American and I can't wait for the Brits to build these monsters I want a tour.
testbooster 3 years ago
Just ignore him. I personally don't mind if it's British or U.S. technology that's making the world a little safer--we're brothers anyway, in my opinion. The United States Navy and the Royal Navy are the two most innovative, powerful, plentiful navies in the world. To challenge either is folly--especially considering that to war with one, is to war with the other. The States bring the power, and Great Britian bring the pride. Lots of love from your neighbor across the Atlantic. :)
RSking1 3 years ago
lol
i agree but where were you in falklands?
we had 2 bring both the power AND the pride :)
numba1danman 3 years ago
Yes, yes, not to belittle the sheer force or determination of either navy. :) Our carriers will be prettier though. xD >_>
RSking1 3 years ago
no no no, i think yours will be more powerful, like the oprah winfrey of the seas, while ours will be like the megan fox and jessica alba - we should call them that lol!
numba1danman 3 years ago
All modern supercarriers will use nuclear energy, enabling "limitless" travel across the seas. Refueling once every, what is it, forty years? I don't remember. Food and other supplies not directly related to combat are stored on a cargo ship which tags along with a carrier's strike group. The Nimitz strike groups operate this way, and it's a safe bet that the Ford class carriers and Great Britian's new carriers will operate in the same way.
RSking1 3 years ago
They do look very... well...next generation! As for the cost , Tony Blair recently surrendered to the EU the 3 billion Pounds per annum rebate that Thatcher negotiated, and I understand Nulab are doubling the 500 million in aid that they give to the Taliban ...er sorry...Pakistan.
I think I need to read 'Atlas Shrugged' again.
At least John Galt could look forward to the prospect of a better world.
ispiffey 3 years ago
ispiffey
Don't forget the £825 million to India..Gordon can't give it away fast enough..
Its enough to pay for these boats many times over ..six years before they are ready..by then £24 billion would have been given away by the UK..
brokenbriton 3 years ago
you mean like foreign aid?
numba1danman 3 years ago
Yes. Never ceases to amaze me how UK politicians get away with being so patronizing and contemptuous - as if foreigners were inherently incapable of building their own schools and hospitals if they so desired.
ispiffey 3 years ago
no but abit more money helps. only o.5% of GDP, why don't we help? stupid prick them people need help more than any1 else so we shud give them money if they need it not a matter of pride but of living or dieing!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Instead of more government aid and planning, they need to create and sustain an environment conducive to wealth creation. This requires free enterprise, secure property rights, contract enforcement and the rule of law. Every one of these attributes is sorely lacking in the Third World and none of these will be helped by foreign aid. At best, transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries destroys marginal producers. At worst, it empowers tyrants.
ispiffey 3 years ago
yeah yeah yeah, wateva you just don't wanna see your money go 2 other ppl, money helps no matter wat you can say or do, the money given changes lives, it is up to the government of that country to decide wat to do with the money or else they will never be able to succeed and all wat you said is not based on any fact wat so ever!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Clearly, you are unacquainted with 'Government against the Economy,' by George Reisman. The point is: money in wrong hands makes things far worse in the long term. The best and most complete presentation of the science of economics can be found in Reisman's 'Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics,' but Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt is a good introduction for those unfamiliar with this important subject.
ispiffey 3 years ago
Yes Ispiffey
You give them money then they buy weapons with it and the people don't see it...and you are right these places can sort themselves out in time. It must have been very embarrasing when it was realised that Yasser Arafat had over 1 billion stashed away...The money we give to the EU is daft...Maggie was right on that one.
brokenbriton 3 years ago
Only 1450 personnel including aircrew - must be quite advanced.
ispiffey 3 years ago
it's meant 2 be yeah!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Ummmh. Which aircraft will fly from them ??..Which ships will give the protection to the carriers ?? What use are they in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan??
brokenbriton 3 years ago
the F35's will fly from them - STOVL, they are arguably teh most advanced planes built for use on a carrier. the type 45 will protect them - arguably the best destroyer in the world. the type 23 frigates will and the future surface combatant. they provide more capabilities such as transport for troops and major planning can b carried out from them in a safe environmen. don't know if you know m8 but the planes can travel like 3,000km so wen the ship is docked they can be use in afghanistan + iraq
numba1danman 3 years ago
Ah yes..Thanks for that..looks they work out at about £43 million each. Yes this is the version that had the weight problem and they have reduced its payload by half...If this is the F35B variant and has only a 2,000km range...For some reason the RN are not buying the F35C ( carrier version)which has the greater range..I think the UK RN have planned to buy 60.
brokenbriton 3 years ago
no m8 they had to reduce the weight by 150 kg not half the weight lol, 2000km-3,000km still can do harm quite far away from the carrier! they are expensive but so were the harriers. these are the first supersonic STOVL owned by the RN, and we took the STOVL cos we lead the way in STOVL tech so would be easier for us to change them/fix them etc and they are buying 138 lol wouldn't work out having 60 aircraft but having 36 on the carriers at all times!!!!?
numba1danman 3 years ago
I was meaning the weapons load. Because it is stealth the weapons are carried in board...Yes you are right the order for the RAF and RN is 138 scaled back from 150..
brokenbriton 3 years ago
great news today contracts signed.
TO GLORY WE STEER
elswick1542 3 years ago
why not HMS nelson and HMS Britannia?
something more inspiring than prince of wales lol
great ships though glad they're going ahead, but wish they hadn't cut 12 type 45's to 8 then to 6!!!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Are these new carriers going to be nuclear or conventional powered? looks like funnel behind the superstructure ??
DAVIDRCGRAY 3 years ago
Nope, they said it would be to expensive to do nuclear. There going to run of gas turbine engines.
bullseye2121 3 years ago
why is it that wen the uk economy was in recession, and poverty and unemployment was high we spent a ton on defense and now we have a higher GDP per capita than the usa do we spend relatively nothing?! anyone agree that while we have the money we should deliver safety all over the world not just 4 the people of the UK like in Zimbabwe thats wat the uk is about 'policing the world' so why stop?! no longer do we need the tools to finish the job we have the tools so lets do the job!
numba1danman 3 years ago
We have more people now living in the UK Gordon brown thinks that it's a better idea to out out over 26million a year on family allowance for children that dont even reside in the UK than pay for defence equipment to protect our country and our troops. Says a lot about what the british government thinks about Britain and its citizens.
Peachey1981 3 years ago
oh yeah cos 800 million quid to india or equal to £2.50 per child in India is sooo much! 800 million quid is equal to £12 per person in the UK! OMG that is wat is making this country poor - oh, no, wait we are fukin richer than ever!!!
numba1danman 3 years ago
Im not saying its making the country poor Im saying that the governments priorities are all wrong and using this as an example. There is no need to be obnoxious about it. The country is rich and isn't investing the money the way it should be, which is health, education and defense.
Peachey1981 3 years ago
you said that giving money to 26 million CHILDREN was wrong because they don't live inthis country - to me that is wrong.
numba1danman 3 years ago
I did't say it was wrong but those children also receive help from there own country. But think of it this way, there are elderly in this country only get £200 to heat there homes for an entire winter, soldiers widows who've been asked to return their husbands month's wages straight after they've died for their country, and thousands of families living below the poverty line, those people paid into the system for years and the govt aren't helping them, they aren't paying to improve their lives.
Peachey1981 3 years ago
We do have the largest defence budget in the world after the USA so they do spend alot. I think we need more though around £170 billion is spent on people who do not work in this country that could be money that goes in to building more carriers like this one and investing in more air craft and more equipment. I would say we needed it with the way the world is going. Perhaps raise the pay of troops to encourage more to sign up.
RangeProductions 3 years ago
Also I wasn't referring to the children in India I know that the people in India need a lot of help. That it's government would rather spend money on weapons than help its residents, my only hope for them is that the money given to them actually improves their quality of life.
Peachey1981 3 years ago
HUNDLEYGUY95:
Seriously, you need to relax. Go to a French website looking for a fight. The Brits have been one of our very few trustworthy allies over the years. You're making us all look like asses, and I wont stand for it. Oh and the comment about how if you saw one of the posters in person, they would only have three seconds to live, get real. With my nine you would only have one second. Get lost or get with the program. The UK is our sacrosanct ally!
AmericanPatriot4Real 3 years ago
Thank you for that and all due respect
Boccherini64 3 years ago
Allow me to appologize on behalf of the American people for my fellow countryman's (HUNDLEYGUY95) rude and condescending comments. America values our relationship with the UK very much. We speak the same language, and share many of the same values. While it is true that with the influx of Muslim extremists in your country we have grown somewhat weary, we will never turn our backs on you. You're a damn good lot, just stop letting radicals immigrate to your country, please.
AmericanPatriot4Real 3 years ago
Thank you for you kind words of support. Their are those in this world who would just love to see the USA and UK fall out with each other. Together we are strong and unbeatable. When the present Government gets the huge mighty boot it deserves from the electorate then you will see things change regarding radicals entering our country. The UK is building modern powerful ships, but I would like the RN to triple in size, with a mimimum 6 large carriers, and 30 type 45 Destroyers.
oldgattonian2 3 years ago
the RN said they dont need to triple in size. there ships are caperble of destroying anything that comes near them. take the type 45 destroyer has a sylo deck with 45 missiles in it. thats 45 targets every 6 seconds with its auto realoader. thats why its the most powerful destroyer in the world. thats 45 enermy ships per reloader
Pearcernboi15 3 years ago
that'll be the day!!!
numba1danman 3 years ago
soz i meant STOVL
chizz32 3 years ago
The way for the carriers to be most effective would be to carry F-35's for STOL, but also have catapults and arrestor cables so aircraft such as the eurofighter typhoon could also be on board, although the eurofighter cant match the stealth of the F-35,the eurofighters manouverability is unmatched worldwide
chizz32 3 years ago
deffinately, but it's not really a fair comparison, not because F-35 is 15 years more advanced, but because F-35 is optimised for ground attack, more of a strike fighter than a true multirole, and Typhoon is a fighter it would be nice to see both planes abord the CVF's F-35 for strike/CAS/SEAD typhoon for AD/air supremacy, navalised typhoon with improved avionics, radar, arrestor hook and a more capable vectorable engines to increase payload/speed and shorter takeoff's
Vyvyan92 3 years ago
Complete rubbish
paulnigelh 3 years ago
till the music changed this was good :P
keegan323f 3 years ago
I believe it is still 65,000 - 75,000 max. If it was 100,000 - then its a very poor carrier, because it only hold 48 aircraft max...
thewickerman1962 3 years ago
nice vid.
briani2216 3 years ago
If the tories get into power I hop that they don't cancel the carriers.
The Tories have got a history of cutting spending.
backnorth 3 years ago
Hey shagger, Its a waste of our money GB dont need global power projection any more. We just follow the Yanks and therefore can rely on their carriers. Better to spend our money on DSS to look after our british scroungers!
paulnigelh 3 years ago
typical of many europeans, stand behind we americans and cower, you know that if britain had a full sized carreir falklands wouldnt have happened, and we americans are tired of having to put up with do your shit with our carriers, you got the resoiurces, build supercarriers yourself
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
was it like that when britain was the only one who stood wiv the usa in the iraq war?
35,000 men and women risked their lives for usa, 25% of our armed forces, you only used 10 - 15% who was more commited?
numba1danman 3 years ago
op desert storm, USA had 1,376 aircraft to the UKs 69, USA deployed 575,000 to 697,000 men, UK only 43,000 to 45,000 men, op iraqi freedom, comprised of 300,000 men at the sart, mostly americans, and about 177,000 current, about 150,000 of which are americans
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
Fuck you. The contract is singed for, they are going to be built and I hope you are in the doll que while I'm building it. And America an lick clean the decks of CVF after licking clean my Scotch balls. I couldn't care less if it's a bad idea or not (You're wrong, our carriars need updated), It's given me a for well over a decade and possibly longer than that.
Shagger 3 years ago
You dont know much about Govmt. contracts mate! They can cancel at will with no penalty! Then you can use your foul mouth comments to your mates in the dole queue at Quensferry!!
paulnigelh 3 years ago
Dont rejoice prematurely. Our government has got a poor record for completing military projects. They will never afford to operate two of these carriers. If they get finished one will always be in mothballs/reserve just wait and see. Waste of money really we wouldnt use them independently of the USA in any case!
paulnigelh 3 years ago
UUUUUUhhhhh AAAhhhhh
saspir 3 years ago
The CVF is a masterpiece! In terms of size it's bigger than every other aircraft carrier apart from America's Nimitz class, but it's fast and more powerful than the Nimitz so can be deployed quicker and with 40 of the new F-35's, the first plane ever to go supersonic then land vertically, better armed to. I'm one of the 55 apprentices taken on by Babcock marine to blot the 4 mega-sections and flight deck together in Rosyth and I cant wait to see it all come together.
Crap music in this vid...
Shagger 3 years ago 4
yea i agree wirth you on all but that one comment on this being more powerful than the nimitzs, they are equl, neither is more powerful, and by the time this comes into commision we will have the GERALD R. FORD class coming in, with almost double the aircraft capacity of a nimtz, 140 planes max, most of which will also be F35s, QE and nimitz are on par, GERALD is more powerful and stealthly too
HUNDLEYGUY95 3 years ago
O yeah, relations between US and GB are not just special they are even intimate.
OlegStrk 3 years ago
Now I have a mental image of Bush and Brown making out in the oval office.
JoseyLondon 3 years ago
No evidence.
Anyway, as for the French - they might not even get their carrier. Look it up. Secondly, when we get these babies, the UK will be the only country to deploy multiple large carriers apart from the US. Oh, and Japan doesn't even have an aircraft carrier - or nukes.
So Doubledeckertaco, I suggest you take a closer look at the British Armed Forces before you say that they're crap. Also, look up something called the 'special relationhip'
thewickerman1962 3 years ago
gthe royal air force is better than the navy i would just like to point out that
cadetbarley1